Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995

Vol. 145 No. 11

Harbours Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Before we suspended discussion of this Bill I was making general remarks about the Bill. I took exception to the macho language of "ship's master" and "harbour master" but I do not think "ship's mistress" or "harbour person" would be a great change. On a serious note, this is an exceptionally important Bill which will improve the efficiency of harbours throughout the country. As we have become a net exporting rather than a net importing country over the last 15 years, the operation of harbours becomes more important for the efficiency of our nation. The increased container traffic, cargo loads and overall shipping traffic in and out of the island makes it essential that we run our harbours on a commercial basis. I will refer to this on later Stages of the Bill, particularly as we are changing the traditional boards to companies, with all that implies. It reflects on life in Ireland and our current needs.

My core complaint concerns the section containing the objectives of the company, because it lacks a reference to the environment, although I am glad that another section mentions nuclear waste. Because the traffic which will go through harbours is so important, it is crucial that the harbour companies be given a clear responsibility to protect the environment of which they have control. This must be done in a proactive way in the legislation and I ask the Minister to take this on board.

The objects of the company listed in section 11 are all proper. Senator Taylor-Quinn was worried about the engagement in business activity, but I fully approve of it because in itself it will give emphasis to these points. However, the Minister should consider introducing a new sub-paragraph (f) to section 11 (1) so that among the objectives of a harbour company would be to regulate, control or direct any substances, activities, processes, ships or vehicles within the harbour area which might impact destructively or negatively on the environment. By making this an objective of the company, it would have the authority to pursue it under the section which provides that a company shall have power to do anything which appears requisite, advantageous or incidental to or which appears to facilitate, either directly or indirectly, its performance of its functions. That section may also need to be amended, but no more than that is required. I will put forward an amendment to that effect after examining the matter more closely.

The Minister's record on environmental issues is second to none — he has been to the forefront on major issues like nuclear power and nuclear waste. I grew up beside a harbour and know the dirt which can flow and the material which may be dumped in it. I have not studied the Bill in as much detail as other speakers, but it seems the provisions concerning nuclear power and ballast are the only ones where the Minister has addressed this issue. I considered whether the harbour companies should also have input to planning permission around the harbour area, but they would probably be seen as an interested party and would therefore have an input into the planning process in any case. It would therefore not be correct if they had control over planning, although they would have a significant and influential input.

I ask the Minister to look at this matter. The busier harbours become, the greater potential there is for problem, whether through leakage, seepage, spillage or jetsam which could clog them up. If raw sewerage flows into a harbour from elsewhere, or if marked fish are dumped, who has control over that? Those matters may be covered elsewhere, but the harbour companies should have control over their environment. Any processing industry which might develop from the objective of engaging in or encouraging business activities could well lead to discharges which might create a problem. I will not labour this point as I will return to it later, but I ask the Minister to respond to it in detail.

Section 12 is extremely significant, as the Minister will agree. I am comfortable, which I might not have been some years ago, with the change from providing a service to a commercial enterprise. I recognise and accept the arguments for it, but we should note that this is what is happening. Up to now the object was to provide a good service, now it is intended to operate on a commercial basis.

I approve the optimism of the provision that the company should conduct its affairs to ensure its revenues are not less than sufficient, taking one year with another. The Minister should submit that provision to tomorrow's Cabinet meeting on the Estimates. Those who operate harbours should be under no more restrictions than those who run Departments. The provision is optimistic and I hope it works out that way. However, I hope the boards, as they are at present, or the companies, as they will be, are not faced with an impossibility if some of the things they want to develop are not possible on a year by year basis.

Section 13 concerns agents, who will have to give a bond or other type of security. The Irish Ship Agents' Association is concerned about this provision and the Minister has made changes from an earlier version of the Bill. I will listen to both the Minister and the association on the point. I approve of the idea of bonding by people who provide a service and have no fundamental objection to it. I am looking at the possibility of buying a boat at the moment and that will require a marine survey. I will only have that marine survey done by somebody who has a bond or indemnity to ensure that I can depend on his or her work. Similarly I would not book a holiday with a travel agent who was not bonded. It is not quite the same thing, but it is fair that the harbours should not be at a loss if they do business through an agent who might be acting in good faith but who might himself or herself be let down by a ship owner. I am prepared to listen to the arguments. I seem to be coming down on the Minister's side rather than the other side at the moment, but I have not spoken to these people. I will listen to what they have to say and I will come back to this on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

The section which has been discussed more than any other is section 13(8). I recognise that this issue has been discussed many times. I do not want to rehearse the arguments here; I heard the arguments from New Ross and Waterford in regard to their concerns. As the people in New Ross see it, ships coming to them through the water of Waterford Harbour will have to pay charges, directly or indirectly, to two different harbour companies. There seems to be a difficulty there, but I can see that there is a very sustainable argument on both sides.

Where there is common usage, there should be a common approach. The Bill should attempt to provide for that. Whether the Minister believes it or not, he has taken the easy way out in this regard. Where a ship has to pass through two different harbour areas, there should be a common approach both to the service provided there and also to the costings involved in it. That should be done strictly on a basis proportionate to the shipping going into each port. It is not difficult to do that and it should be done. It would have many implications but the situation should not be left as it is. It is wrong and too easy to say that harbour charges can be imposed in such a situation without any intervention or system of agreement on what the calculation might be. Harbour authorities like New Ross would want to protect themselves in that situation. I have a lot of sympathy for them in this regard.

The harbour masters have taken up a strong position in regard to their involvement with the board and whether he or she can engage with the board. I listened very closely to the speech of President Robinson to the UN General Assembly this year. It was a very progressive speech, which was no doubt approved by Government and came from the Department of Foreign Affairs, although it got very little publicity. The President mentioned in it that the Secretary General of the UN should attend and be part of the Security Council. I agree with that. This is exactly the same issue.

The idea that the harbour master could in some situations not be a participant in the workings of the board is a neglect. I feel very strongly about it. They have to be in there. I can relate it to my own position as the general secretary of a trade union. I am a non-voting member of the executive. I do not want to vote on the executive but I could not imagine a situation where I would not be involved in the decision making process by discussing those decisions with the executive. I feel very strongly about this; the Minister should have another look at it.

I wish to raise a question — I will check the answer if I am not around when the Minister is summing up — about the right of the harbour master to authorise or delegate authority to other people. I fully approve of that, it is a good way to do business. However, the legislation is not clear on this issue. It would be important for all those involved to protect themselves in regard to where responsibility lies in the event of delegation. What happens if the harbour master asks a member of staff to do something which eventually contributes to a problem in regard to which there is negligence or liability? I am not talking about pointing the finger here; I am just looking at this in the same way as I would look at the Ministers and Secretaries Act by which we run the Civil Service.

There is a discussion as to how much a departmental secretary, who is after all the Accounting Officer of the Department, can delegate. As far as I know, the responsibilities which the Minister has had delegated to him through the Department of the Marine had to be written, approved, accepted and delegated by Government in a very formal way when he took up office. This provision is analogous to that. Where does the responsibility lie at the time of delegation? Responsibility should still lie with the harbour master. I wish to be very clear about that, because the buck stops with the person in authority, with the accounting officer, the person who will have to take all aspects, including that one, into consideration when deciding to delegate. Delegation, in other words, does not pass the buck in terms of responsibility.

There is a lot in the section dealing with safety of navigation and security in the harbour. How close has been the contact between the Minister and the Department and the Health and Safety Authority? Have they had an input into that section? I am very conscious that the whole area of reportage of accidents and so on, the procedures for safety and the fact that there will now be a designated safety officer, probably the harbour master, has implications for other legislation. I would certainly like to hear from the Minister where that leaves us and where we go from there.

Section 52 states that the harbour master may at any time prohibit the bringing within the harbour etc. of any article of any kind if he or she thinks it would be likely to endanger persons or property. That is very positive and very important, but I would like to know how this complies with and relates to the requirements of the Health and Safety Authority. Much of their work is neglected in Departments, not deliberately; but people are not conscious and proactive about what the Health and Safety Authority are trying to achieve. The whole question of who takes responsibility should become clear in legislation like this.

I congratulate the Minister on the reference to the nuclear material and the controls in that regard. This is accepted by many different people no matter what their views are on harbours or politics.

I will be going through those sections of the Bill again, discussing all those issues which I have raised today. I have concentrated on those issues. I am sure the Minister has heard all the positive things about the Bill a million times. I would not like him to think that by raising questions and highlighting problems I find the Bill in any way less than superb in its approach. It is very important legislation. It will do the business and improve the current situation considerably. I ask the Minister to accept the issues I have mentioned.

I feel very strongly about votes on Committee Stage to deal with those issues. If one accepts they have been put forward in a positive and supportive way, the Minister might be prepared to take them on board. It would be bad if the legislation began its life with a number of the harbour companies feeling disgruntled, that their interests had not been looked after or that they were not starting off on a level playing pitch. It is incumbent on the Minister and us to bend over backwards to meet their needs as they perceive them.

These new companies are now being required to run commercially competitive enterprises and to make ends meet. If they tell us they must have certain requirements to do this, it is incumbent on us, whether they be Foynes, New Ross or other harbour commissioners, to try and meet their needs as far as possible. We should listen to these people because they are the experts. I would rather listen to them and the Irish Ship Agents' Association before making up my mind on that other issue.

I congratulate the Minister and his staff who have worked long and hard hours to draft this legislation.

Like other speakers, I broadly welcome the Bill. I have a number of points to make. They are not intended to be critical of the Bill but like any complex legislation, there are some areas where improvements can be made.

I come from a county with a maritime coastline and two small commercial and a number of recreational harbours. The impact this Bill will have on those harbours, especially that of Arklow and Wicklow, concerns me. Those ports have been starved of resources in the past. While they have made valiant efforts to make up for those deficiencies, as an island nation we have not given anything like the recognition we should to the importance of the harbour resource.

Another area that concerns me, and it has largely been missing from this debate, is the potential recreational use of a number of harbours, such as Bray or Greystones, the latter will hopefully be the basis of a major tourist investment in the form of a marina in the near future. The small commercial harbours worry me the most. I can see certain difficulties there unless the fundamental problems are resolved before we move to the new model. That said, I very much welcome the commercial emphasis of the Bill in the freeing up of harbours, giving them a commercial focus and making them into State enterprises which will compete with each other, produce the goods and deal in the real world rather than the cosseted world of a semi-local authority that existed for so long.

There are two small but viable commercial harbours in County Wicklow. Arklow is an extremely important harbour in terms of employment — 500 jobs are directly linked to the harbour and there are at least the same number of jobs in the hinterland. The life of that harbour is critically important to that town which has taken a tremendous battering over the years. At first, the Arklow Harbour Commissioners were not entirely happy with the Bill but now they seem to have more than adjusted to the direction it is taking and they are anxious to rise to the challenges.

In spite of all its successes, the fact that Arklow has recently become a port of registration — the biggest single fleet in Ireland is registered there — and that it has a small but thriving fishing enterprise and a number of shipping companies operating from the port, it faces many challenges. It has had difficulties not because of any lack of enterprise in the past but because of the past structure of that authority.

The Arklow Harbour Commissioners have always proven themselves to be a vibrant, lively and active local authority. Under the leadership of the then chairman, Councillor Tom Clandillon, it hammered out an extraordinarily adventurous agreement with the authorities in Brussels in which the authorities there agreed in principle to a development package for the port, provided the harbour commissioners could win support from the domestic Government. That green light never came from Dublin and the initiative shown by the Arklow Harbour Commissioners and Councillor Clandillon was never rewarded by any response from Dublin. The dead hand of central Government applied yet again.

Arklow has a vibrant future. It is incredibly well integrated into the local community and local enterprise. However, one of the issues that will arise as the transition from one type of authority to another comes about will be that of funding. Over the years Arklow had to scrounge for pennies to keep the port open. It has a siltation problem at its mouth. Simply keeping the port open consumes a large amount of the surplus revenue the port earns every year and it is an unfair burden on the port. If the development programme which the commissioners put together a number of years ago had been funded and implemented at this stage, it would have gone a long way towards addressing its siltation problems and have created additional capacity and onshore jobs. Past Governments did not see Arklow harbour as a resource.

Local councillors have made an important impact in the development of the port. The late Councillor John Sweeney battled for years to convert Arklow into a port of registration. I remember his joy in the last year of his life when he finally won that case because he felt he had done something positive for the port. In ports like Arklow and Wicklow, and indeed Foynes and New Ross, local authority members have played an important role in giving leadership and in integrating the harbour authorities into the local communities, and that is an important linkage.

The other harbour to which I wish to refer — I am unapologetically parochial — is Wicklow. It is also well integrated into the local community, it does an extraordinary amount of business and has been historically and scandalously starved of funds. An excess of £1.5 million capital investment has been made in that port by the existing harbour commissioners from their meagre resources over the last 14 years. However, the total support they received from the Government to date would be slightly less than £250,000.

It looked as if County Wicklow would get a bonanza in the recent by-election because there was a rumour that £400,000 in development funding would be called down in the near future to do important work in Wicklow port. The Minister has been in the port and knows about some of the problems. There is a need for piling and to shore up the harbour and onshore works. The Wicklow Harbour Commissioners have invested £100,000 to buy the steel to do the piling to save the harbour so as to pass on their patrimony. They are still waiting for the word from Brussels and Dublin but the promised resources have not been forthcoming.

Arklow and Wicklow ports are not unique in that. Other small ports are in the same position. They have all had the traditional problem of funding. This problem was not caused by this Minister or this Administration; it can be laid at the feet of all Administrations. Since the State was founded, small harbours have not been seen as a resource.

I was amazed to hear a Senator say that we suffer from an abundance of small harbours. This is precisely what the nation needs; an abundance of small harbours capable of bringing goods and services in and out of their hinterlands is a positive move.

Two harbour commissions have made a particularly important and impressive contribution in giving background briefing to Members of this House; Foynes and New Ross. We have discussed both ports extensively but I will add my penny's worth. I was incredibly impressed by the Foynes Harbour Trustees under the leadership of Councillor John Griffin. They provided us all with an extraordinary example of how lobbying should operate. It was timely, to the point and effective. They have educated many of us in this House, and I am sure many of us in the other House, as to precisely the type of challenges that faced this harbour group or trustees.

Foynes put forward a clearly argued case to establish a clear jurisdiction for the harbour trustees and their successors. The case was so cogently argued and so incredibly well backed up that I am pleased the Minister has given an indication that he will be moving in their direction on Committee Stage. What the Foynes Harbour Trustees sought was reasonable, and their case was put forward in a reasonable manner and with measured argument. They have clarified the issue of jurisdiction within the Shannon Estuary for us all. They have been very helpful. The ancient but colourful idea that one could throw a spear into the harbour and establish some form of jurisdiction may be historically attractive, but we all accept that it was not sufficient.

The Foynes Harbour Trustees are looking for jurisdiction over five miles of coastline and over the contiguous waters, which is very reasonable, in comparison with 125 miles of coastline which will lie within the jurisdiction of the other harbour and its successor. The Minister took a very appropriate step by appointing a mediator. The mediation process has now been completed and the Minister has promised to introduce an amendment, to which I look forward, on Committee Stage giving legislative effect to the mediator's report. I welcome the Minister's decision and his undertaking, because while the Foynes trustees have not been given quite everything they sought initially, they are now in sight of a reasonable and a rational solution to their set of problems.

I realise that there is some disappointment in Limerick with the decisions and a case has been put forward, especially on the pilotage issue. In fact, Limerick commissioners will also, in a sense, make a very significant gain from this legislation. Their jurisdiction has now been established firmly on a statutory basis. The ceremony of hurling a spear periodically into Shannon's waters may have been colourful, but is a little archaic when it comes to establishing jurisdictional issues. Now Limerick Harbour Commissioners and their successor companies will have their jurisdiction clearly set out. I believe that logic will prevail and that everybody will see that the case being made by Foynes is, in the long run, a good case.

At the end of the day, what harm can be done by having two companies in the estuary effectively competing with each other and effectively providing standards of excellence, and of costs and effectiveness, that each of them must aspire to? Competition in this way cannot be anything but healthy for both Limerick and for Foynes.

The case put forward by New Ross Commissioners is convincing and just and has also been made on the basis of cogent arguments, which have been ably put to us over the past few weeks by the harbour commissioners led by Councillor Jim Curtis and Councillor Jim Walsh. As we all know, New Ross is concerned about two specific matters. The solutions in its case are not as clear cut, or they are not as obviously in view, as the solution in the case of Foynes. The New Ross Commissioners are concerned about light dues, or harbour charges, and about pilotage.

The issue of light dues can be very easily resolved. Ships bound for the port of New Ross must currently pass through the port of Waterford, or part of Waterford Harbour. At present these ships are charged light dues at the same rate as vessels going all the way to Waterford. In effect, this means that the Waterford Harbour Commissioners collect the sum of £45,000 annually in light dues from ships bound for New Ross. The charge is not related to the cost of providing the lights, and is, in the view of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners, excessive. It damages the competitiveness of New Ross.

The harbour commissioners in Waterford take an alternative view, as is the nature of such discussions. An amendment by the Minister on Report Stage in the other House regarding the continuation of this charging procedure appears to be flawed. The New Ross Harbour Commissioners have put forward a proposed amendment to the Minister which has much to commend it.

New Ross port accepts fully that where another port provides facilities and invests capital and current revenues in supporting those facilities, the facilities have to be paid for. New Ross also accepts that the facilities must be paid for on a shared and equitable basis. The issue of the equity of the argument is not in question as far as New Ross is concerned, but what it wants is that there should be equity in the solution to this matter.

The New Ross commissioners have suggested that section 13 (8) be deleted and have asked that it be replaced by a specific formulation of words. If I read this formulation into the record, perhaps the Minister may, in his summing up on this Stage or perhaps at the beginning of Committee Stage, have the opportunity to indicate whether he is going to accept their view. They say:

If by reason of the situation of any harbour it is necessary for a ship proceeding to such a harbour to enter or anchor within the harbour of another company, then where a ship enters or anchors within the harbour of such a company for the purposes and the purpose only of proceeding to the first mentioned harbour, the said company may not impose any harbour charges in respect of such entering or anchorage by that ship. Providing that where the said company provides services or facilities which are utilised by such ships it may recover a fair proportion of the capital and operational costs incurred in providing such services or facilities from the first port company.

I accept that this is not as pithily, or indeed as verbosely worded as perhaps the parliamentary draftsman might manage, but they are basically arguing for a formula that will charge equitably and distribute the costs and the impositions between the two harbour authorities.

As we are speaking of two harbour authorities, two State companies which will be within a short number of miles of one another and will be in competition with each other, it is clearly and obviously right that there should not be a situation where one company could impose charges which would in any way damage the competitiveness of the other company. This would not be a level playing field, although we are perhaps mixing metaphors when speak of harbours and playing fields.

There is a great deal of attention paid in the Bill to pilotage, which is an important issue. Currently, pilotage is compulsory, in a sort of a way, for inbound vessels in Waterford Estuary. However, as we know, not all inbound vessels take on pilots at Dunmore East. The extraordinary situation exists that in many cases ships proceed to Ballyhack, Passage East, before embarking a pilot, and this practice is especially prevalent when the weather is bad. Generally, the worse the weather, the less likely it is that the pilot will board the ship at Dunmore East and the more likely it is that the master will take the ship to Ballyhack, Passage East. Oddly enough, on the outward passage from Ballyhack, Passage East, it is not compulsory for coastwise vessels to have pilots on board. In effect, a minority of the overall movements through the estuary as far as Ballyhack, Passage East, currently have a pilot.

The New Ross Harbour Commissioners have proposed that pilotage should be optional for vessels of less than 8,000 tonnes dwt from Dunmore East to Ballyhack, Passage East, and they suggest that the current practice indicates that compulsory pilotage in this area for ships of that size or of a smaller size is not necessary. They can argue conclusively that there has not been any threat to safety or to life or any threat to the environment from the practice, which is now effectively the reality in the vast majority of ship movements, that there is no pilot as far as Ballyhack, Passage East.

Their second recommendation is that New Ross pilots would board the ships at Ballyhack, Passage East, and proceed through the Barrow bridge to New Ross. This recommendation, they argue, would give the New Ross pilots additional time in the ships and would be an extra safety measure. At present when the New Ross pilot gets possession of the vessel and proceeds through the Barrow bridge towards New Ross the pilot is taking charge of the vessel at a relatively dangerous part of the journey and has little time to get a feel for the vessel. Anybody who has attempted to take even a small vessel up a river knows, given the changes in tide and current, that it is quite an extraordinary task to take possession of a vessel with which one is not familiar and to take it into relatively difficult, narrow waters where there are challenging currents. Basically, the New Ross Harbour Commissioners are asking that their pilot should board the vessel at Ballyhack, Passage East, and take it as far as New Ross. I cannot see any logical argument that can be put forward against that.

The Minister previously recognised that pilotage on the Suir Estuary should be examined and he announced a review group comprising representatives of the Department and an independent expert. I welcome that, but I hope the views that have been put forward and argued extremely well by the New Ross Commissioners and the solution they have suggested will be accepted. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that.

The issue of membership has been mentioned by a number of contributors. There has been reference to the role of local authority members on the harbour commissions at present and their potential role in the new structures. Local authority members add considerably to the harbour commissions. I have already mentioned Councillors Griffin, Curtis and Walsh and the extraordinary amount of time they have given to the case for Foynes and New Ross. I have also mentioned my old friend the late John Sweeney of Arklow, and Tom Clandillon and the work they have done. It would not strain any Senator's memory to think of dozens more. Over the years hundreds of local authority members have given an extraordinary amount of time and service to harbour commissions all over the country. There is a healthy relationship between local authorities and harbour authorities. In the years ahead we should enhance the role of local authority members on harbour boards.

Hear, hear.

Senator Neville has agreed and he made the same point in his contribution. Given the nature of a harbour and its relationship with its hinterland and the local community, it is important that a link is forged between the two through dual membership of local authorities and the harbour boards. After all, the local councillors have one quality that no other member of the harbour board has — they have a democratic endorsement from the local people and if local people do not like what is happening in their harbour they can reflect that the next time they go to the polls.

Local authority members have been a particularly important element in the composition of harbour commissions. They will play an equally important, in fact, a growing role in the new authorities. Indeed, as we head into a new commercial age of competition, it is particularly important that local communities will have their elected representatives on the boards, batting for them, ensuring that others do not let the concept of competition go to their heads and that they will have a modifying influence.

I am mystified as to why Members of the Oireachtas should be singled out, as they have been in Bills introduced by all administrations, for exclusion from service on bodies such as harbour boards. I wonder at that logic. There could be potential problems, but if people are interested in and willing to go for public life it should not mean that there is a type of mark on their forehead whereby they are not eligible for consideration for appointment elsewhere. A mass murderer who has served his or her time could be appointed to the board of one of the new bodies, but a Member of the Oireachtas could not be appointed. That is odd in a country that claims to value democracy.

Could the Minister elaborate on the meaning of "vested interests"? The whole point of having a board or State body is to have an informed oversight on a company. In the State-sponsored sector there has been criticism that the boards do not contain enough expertise and experience. Elsewhere I have argued that it is difficult to get the expertise and experience required to run, for example, a State airline; there are not many people around with such expertise and experience. Broadly speaking, however, the critics are making the point that people with knowledge and experience in the field of commerce are required on the boards.

However, if we narrowly interpret the concept of vested interests it would mean that people with the most relevant expertise and experience could effectively be barred in the future from boards in the new structures. In the case of Arklow, for example, the managing director of an important and growing shipping company was until relatively recently an active member of the harbour commissioners and played an extraordinary role and put much expertise and effort into developing the harbour commissioners. At present the owner and managing director of a shipping agency is on the board and this gentleman puts a vast amount of his time and effort into the port. There is a confluence of interest between developing a port which is active and vibrant and developing his own business. In a sense it is a serendipitous arrangement whereby a person who has knowledge can provide the support and expertise that the board requires. It is the old concept of the rising tide raising all boats. In Wicklow there are further examples of people who have business experience or are involved in the shipping industry and shipping agencies and who are serving on the harbour board.

It would be a bad mistake to create an environment in which people who have such experience, are up-front about their interests and make the necessary statutory declarations of interest were to be barred or in any way prevented from the possibility of serving on the boards. It would be important not to lose this expertise because of a poorly thought out ideological principle. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that when he responds to what has been a long and, I am sure, tiresome debate.

With these caveats I give the Bill a broad welcome. I am pleased to see this legislation being introduced, because virtually throughout the history of the State we have ignored our marine resource. There is an extraordinary lack of relevant legislation and there has been no long or considered debate about the importance of the marine resource. It was my privilege in 1984 to head the task group which drew up the policy document Towards a Marine Policy, which later led to the establishment of the Department of the Marine. I was disappointed subsequently that the Department of the Marine got effectively sidetracked by issues such as the rod licence dispute. It was almost strangled at birth. I believe the Department of the Marine is in many ways the most important economic Ministry in the State. It has to try to make up for 70 years of neglect of an extraordinary resource, the last native resource we have failed to fully exploit.

I wish the Minister well in his challenging task. He has been appointed to a marvellous Department and this is good legislation. That is not to say it is not capable of being improved — everything can be improved. I look forward to the Minister's response.

I thank Senators for the positive attitude they have shown to this important and timely Bill. The debate has been lengthy but stimulating. This is a period of historic change in Irish ports. With the passing of this Bill the 1990s will see a radical restructuring of our leading ports combined with new technology on our docksides and new shipping services to our world markets. This Bill is designed to allow our 12 major harbours to grow into fully commercial and market driven ports. In the next five years £135 million of Irish and European funds will be invested in the development of our major ports. This investment, combined with investment in new and modern shipping technology, means that over £250 million will be spent to improve access for Ireland's trade in tourism. I believe Senators will join with me in welcoming this great progress in our port sector.

Our commercial port traffic has grown by almost 60 per cent since 1980. As the only island nation left in the EU, we are more dependent on sea ports than any other member state. We must minimise our transport cost barriers to be able to compete in the Single European Market. We have set an ambitious target of reducing port and shipping costs in the Republic by 15 per cent in real terms by 1999.

I wish to respond to some of the points made during the opening debate. Senator Fitzgerald has been critical of the length of time taken to prepare the legislation. I remind him that the establishment of the Commercial Harbours Review Group was announced by the then Minister, the former Deputy Wilson, in October 1990. The review group presented its report and recommendations to the then Minister, Deputy Woods, in July 1992. Following receipt of the report, a comprehensive round of consultations was held with the social partners, city and county managers and harbour authorities on the purpose and content of the legislation.

The Bill is complex and detailed, comprising 105 sections and six Schedules. Because of this, the consultation process took some time. I compliment my constituency colleague, Deputy Andrews, and the late Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan for the preparatory work they undertook on this Bill. The time devoted to the preparation of the legislation was time well spent because, in my view, the Bill is comprehensive and good.

Senator Fitzgerald also questioned the need for Departments to establish review groups and suggested that Departments should make decisions on matters for which they are responsible without recourse to such reviews. I consider it necessary and appropriate for any organisation to seek to bring different points of view to bear on important issues. This is why we have undertaken an extensive process of public consultation in the major review of marine policy which is under way at present. There has been a positive response from interested individuals and organisations and I am sure that the process of developing a comprehensive policy framework for the marine sector will benefit substantially from the range of views expressed.

The review of the fishery harbour centres is an overall review of the organisational and management structure of the fishing services. This review, which is being carried out for the Department by Price Waterhouse management consultants, will look at the institutional framework for the development and regulation of the sea fisheries, aqua-culture and inland fishery sectors and will recommend any changes necessary to improve the coherence and efficiency of the delivery of public policies and services to these sectors. The review is well under way and the intention is that it will be finalised as soon as possible. The future administration of Dingle Harbour, which was raised by Senator Fitzgerald, will be furthered considered on receipt of the consultants' report and recommendations.

Senator Fitzgerald also made the point that there is nothing in the Bill regarding the granting of licences by port companies for small boats to ferry passengers. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1992, a requirement was imposed on all passenger boats to hold a current and valid passenger boat licence. A passenger boat is any boat used to carry not more than 12 passengers for hire or reward in any capacity, including inland transport, transport on rivers and carrying people to and from work. A passenger boat licence may only be granted by the Minister for the Marine after a vessel has been inspected by a departmental marine surveyor and is found to be suitable. All passenger boats, if they are to be licensed, must comply with minimum standards of safety and seaworthiness. A licence may be granted for a period not exceeding two years and is subject to such limitations or restrictions as may be imposed. Section 53 of the Harbours Act, 1946, has been superseded by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1992, so far as the licensing of passenger boats is concerned.

Senator Fitzgerald was also critical of the penalties provided for in the Harbours Act, 1946, and requested that these be brought into line with the penalties provided for in the Harbours Bill, 1995. The legislative programme of the Minister for Justice includes a proposed indexation of fines Bill. I will bring the points raised by the Senator to the attention of the Minister for Justice so that they may be considered in that context.

I share Senator Fitzgerald's concerns about the restriction of access for vessels powered by or carrying nuclear cargoes and I will consider what is the most appropriate way to deal with this issue by way of legislation.

Senator Neville made the point that there is no agency from which a person can get State aid to put a ship on the seas and thereby create employment. While no Exchequer funding has been made available since 1992, under the 1987 shipping investments grant, shipping continues to benefit through the application of the 10 per cent corporation profits tax to the sector. The Department is anxious that Irish ship owners should be in a position to compete effectively with vessels sailing under other flags and that employment opportunities for our seafarers should be maintained and enhanced. A review of shipping policy is taking place as part of the wider review of marine policy with a view to achieving these objectives.

Senator Neville, Senator Dan Kiely and Senator Kelly raised the condition of the N69 road serving the port of Foynes. I have been advised by the National Roads Authority that the operational programme for transport, which was agreed between the Government and the European Commission, provides the framework for investment in national roads over the period 1994-99. Under the programme a total investment of £115 million in 1994 prices is planned for the network of national secondary roads and it is in this context that improvement works on the N69 will be considered for funding.

The N69, with a number of other secondary national routes, is identified in the operational programme as a national secondary road of particular importance to economic development. Grants totalling £2.791 million have been provided for the route over the period 1991-94 and an additional £630,000 has been allocated by the National Roads Authority in 1995. The provision of further grants for the route will be considered when the allocations for 1996 and the following years are being determined.

Senator Dan Kiely inquired what was intended by the establishment of a State commercial company to manage and operate Dún Laoghaire Harbour. He also inquired if this was the foot in the door towards privatisation. At present the harbour is managed and operated by the Department of the Marine. The Bill provides for the setting up of a State commercial company to manage the 12 bigger ports, including Dún Laoghaire. Once the port company for Dún Laoghaire is established, responsibility for the management and operation of the port will be vested in the company and the Department's role in relation to the harbour will be similar to its role in relation to the other commercial sea ports in the State, which is supervising the activities of the new company.

With regard to the possible privatisation of ports, the commercial harbours review group considered a number of alternative structures for ports in order to bring about greater commercialisation and thereby to maximise the greater contribution ports can make to Ireland's trade and tourism development. The group recommended in favour of separate commercial State companies. The option of privatising ports has been rejected.

A number of Senators commented on the composition of the boards of the new port companies and were critical of the fact that statutory representation is not being granted to local business interests. The existing harbour authority boards range in number from nine to 29 members and comprise representatives of local authorities, IBEC, chambers of commerce, trade union interests, the livestock trade and 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 boards of directors of the new port companies should have seven members, including employee representation, the chairman and chief executive. It 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.

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 be not more than 12 and that three local authority directors should be appointed to each company. The Bill, as now presented, provides that the number of directors of each company will be not more than 12. The directors, with the exception of the chief executive, the worker directors and local authority directors will be appointed by the Minister for the Marine 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.

There was a strong demand for the continued representation of local authorities on the new port company boards as such representation would maintain the close relationship between city and town and port. It was argued that local ports play a key role in the economic life of the city or county associated with the port and that there must be close day to day interaction between the port and the local authority. It was suggested that local authority representation on the port authority provided a long established and effective means of ensuring full co-operation between both bodies. The Government agreed that co-operation was essential and considered that the inclusion of local authority representation was merited on these grounds. Accordingly, the Minister will appoint three persons nominated in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority to be a director of the company.

Regulations prescribing the manner in which such persons are to be nominated will be made by the Minister for the Marine in consultation with the Minister for the Environment. The regulations will also prescribe the nominating local authorities. No decisions in this regard have been taken to date, but it could be decided that Galway Corporation could nominate two directors to Galway Port Company and that Galway County Council should nominate one director. Regulations made by the Minister in this regard must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, either House having power to annul them within the next 21 sitting days.

The review group was strongly of the view that persons with a vested business interest in the affairs of a port should not be granted board representation. Some ports are clearly dominated by user interests and one view is that the continuation of such representation could have an inhibiting effect on the commercial effectiveness of the new port companies. Traditionally, user, that is, shipping, interests have enjoyed representation on the boards of harbour authorities. However, in the course of drafting the legislation it was decided not to grant representation as of right to user interests on the new port companies. It should be pointed out, however, that the legislation as drafted does not statutorily exclude such interests from being considered for appointment as directors.

The ministerial directors will in general be drawn from the professional and business community. In appointing such directors I will be anxious to select persons with the appropriate business acumen. With this in mind I intend to invite recognised bodies such as IBEC, chambers of commerce, etc., to recommend persons for consideration for appointment as directors. Alternatively, should such bodies or any interested party wish to submit names for consideration for appointment as directors, I will be happy to bear such nominations in mind for consideration at the appropriate time. The Irish Ship Agents' Association, some chambers of commerce and some individuals have already submitted names of persons for consideration for appointment as directors to the companies and I confirm that these will be borne in mind.

A number of Senators commented on the fact that Deputies, Senators and MEPs are disqualified under the Bill from being appointed to the board of the new port companies. In this regard it is a long standing convention that Members of the Oireachtas and Members of the European Parliament should not be eligible to be directors of semi-State companies. The rationale behind this prohibition probably was the risk of a conflict of interest between a person's functions as a legislator and his or her functions as a member of a board of a State company. For example, it might not be easy for a public representative to be objective about draft legislation dealing with a semi-State body of which he or she was a director.

I will now mention the request by a number of Senators that the legislation be amended to give the harbour masters a statutory right to attend board meetings and to take part in discussions without voting rights. I did not accept amendments of this nature on Committee Stage and Report Stage in the Dáil and I will now outline the reasons I did not do so. Under the Harbours Act, 1946, harbour masters do not have a statutory right to attend harbour authority board meetings. However, the practice is that they attend such meetings and I see no reason that practice should be discontinued. I recognise the important role of the harbour master in relation to safety matters within his area of jurisdiction and the technical knowledge and expertise he has in relation to all aspects of port operations.

Senator Cregan referred to the amendments on Report Stage in the Dáil to section 41 which deals with the pension liabilities of harbours. He was critical of the fact that the Department has been in correspondence with harbour authorities on this matter in advance of the Seanad consideration of the Bill. Following approval of these amendments by the Dáil numerous requests were received in the Department for clarification as to what the amendments meant. With a view to clarifying the matter, letters fully explaining the purpose of the amendments were sent to the 12 ports concerned on 10 November 1995. The letters inter alia stated: “The Harbours Bill, 1995, completed its passage through Dáil Éireann on 8 November 1995 and now goes to the Seanad for consideration.” The letter stressed that the purpose of the amendments was only to provide a back stop guarantee against the eventuality that certain harbours may be unable, through trading performance or closure, to meet pensions liability and that primary responsibility for ensuring that pension funds were adequate would continue to rest with the ports.

Senator Daly mentioned that the fastest growing recreation today is marine leisure activity. I am happy to advise the Senator that as a result of Opposition requests the Bill was amended on Report Stage in the Dáil to enable port companies to promote leisure activities in their harbours should they so desire.

Senator Lydon inquired as to whether the new port companies would have any responsibility in relation to the development of the fishing industry. The Harbours Bill applies to commercial sea ports. The primary function of the new port companies will be to provide facilities and accommodation for goods and passenger ships and their cargoes, in other words, to ensure that our tourists and cargo can get to and from their destinations with the least possible delay. The Bill will also create the freedom for ports to diversify if they so desire, but this must be done within commercial parameters.

A number of Senators referred to the concerns of the Irish Ship Agents' Association in relation to the bonding arrangements as provided for in section 13 (7). I have referred this matter to the Attorney General for advice and I hope it will be available before Committee Stage.

Almost every Senator referred to the local issues at Foynes, Limerick, New Ross and Waterford. As the debate continued, I thought it was a great pity that President Clinton did not visit Ballybunion to play golf and call at Limerick and Foynes on his journey there.

He would have been welcome in Foynes.

He could have brought to that troubled part of our waters the same benign benefits he brought elsewhere.

I listened carefully to the contributions made by Members on all sides of the House about the definition of the harbour limits for the Foynes and Shannon Estuary. I have also received views from Foynes Harbour Trustees and Limerick Harbour Commissioners concerning these matters. The views expressed by the Members and the issues raised by the two harbour commissioners will be fully considered before an amendment is introduced on Committee Stage to extend the limits of Foynes Harbour.

As regards the light dues issue which relates to Waterford Harbour Commissioners and New Ross, this matter is under consideration in the Department at present in consultation with New Ross and Waterford. I hope to be in a position to deal with that in more detail on Committee Stage.

The review of pilotage operations in the Waterford Estuary is expected to get under way within the next two weeks and I hope that the review group's report and recommendations will be available in approximately three months. I believe it will be possible to implement the group's recommendations within the framework of the Bill as presented.

Senator Ormonde and Senator Sherlock raised the question of pilotage and pilotage exemption certificates. Under the Bill the port companies will be required to organise pilotage in either of two ways — by employing pilots directly or by licensing self-employed persons to undertake pilotage operations. The companies 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. Once the new legislation is in place pilotage exemption certificates will be more readily available. The persons in charge of ships which call on a regular basis to a port will be able to apply for such certificates if they so desire and if they satisfy the conditions laid down in section 72.

The Bill requires each company to have regard to the hazards which may be involved in the carriage of dangerous goods or harmful substances on board any ship or ships in relation to which an application for the granting of a pilotage exemption certificate is made. I expect the companies to act responsibly in this matter and to bear in mind that safety is and will continue to be of paramount importance.

Senator Quinn and Senator D'Arcy mentioned the extent to which ports in Northern Ireland, such as Larne, are being used for the export of goods from the Twenty-six Counties at the expense of other ports which are nearer to the eventual destination of such goods. Efforts to change this situation are being made and will continue. The ports of the central and southern corridors have won back over 10 per cent of the entire Irish Sea freight traffic in the past decade.

Senator Calnan mentioned the future administration of the small non-commercial ports. There are three options for consideration in so far as these ports are concerned. The options are: to retain the status quo, that is to allow the ports to continue to operate under the Harbours Act, 1946; to transfer them to local authorities; or to establish State companies to manage them. Each case will be considered on its merits once the new legislation is in place. There will, of course, be full consultation with all interests concerned and submissions in this regard will be carefully and sympathetically considered.

Senator O'Toole expressed a wish to have an environmental protection objective included in the objects of harbour companies. He indicated that he may present an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage. I will certainly consider that at that stage.

Senator Mooney inquired if the statutory powers of the harbour master overrode those of the Customs and Naval services in relation to the boarding of vessels. The answer to that is that they do not. He also inquired about the subject matter of legislation which is entitled 55 George III. I am happy to tell him that that legislation was enacted in the 55th year of the reign of George III and dealt with the establishment of a harbour at Dún Laoghaire.

On that subject, Senator Cosgrave expressed concern about the pension position for existing Department of the Marine employees in Dún Laoghaire. Section 40(1)(5) of the Bill provides that in respect of pre-vesting day pensioners, pension contributions of staff transferred from the Department of the Marine to the Dún Laoghaire Port Company will be paid by the Minister for Finance to the trustees of the pension scheme for the Dún Laoghaire port staff. Payments of this nature must be made not later than five years after the relevant vesting day.

As Members will see, many of the stringent ministerial controls which were contained in the Harbours Act, 1946, are being relaxed or done away with. The aim of the new legislation is to strike a balance between two key priorities. First, to give ports the maximum commercial freedom and responsibility to manage their day to day affairs. Second, the ports are and will continue to be in public ownership and because of this there has to be full accountability. Such accountability is provided for in the new legislation. For example, in section 28 which deals with annual reports and the chairperson's reports to the Minister.

Much concern has been expressed about section 44 of the Bill, which empowers the Minister to issue directions to port companies requiring them to comply with policy decisions of a general kind made by the Minister in relation to ports. It is feared that these ministerial powers will restrict the new port companies from acting in a commercial manner and that the new companies will be in a less favourable position than the present harbour commissioners in relation to ministerial control. In this regard I wish to state that the desirability of preserving the maximum extent of autonomy of the new bodies in day to day operational matters is recognised in the section. Ministerial power to issue directions is confined to policy directions of a general kind.

This Bill 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 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 is to relax ministerial control while increasing accountability for operational and financial performance.

The Harbours Bill, 1995, is quite long and many parts are quite technical and complex. We had a very constructive debate in the Dáil in the course of which I was happy to accept a number of Opposition amendments. I have adopted a very flexible approach in relation to this Bill and amendments which were considered justified and which made the Bill more effective were accepted in the Dáil. I am open to further constructive proposals from Senators and any proposed amendments will be considered with the same flexibility. In other words, they will be assessed on the basis of whether they would make the Bill more effective.

I thank Senators for their constructive response to the Bill. I will have an opportunity to consider some of the specific points which have been made between now and the debate on Committee Stage. I would again like to emphasise that proposals and amendments that would make the Bill more effective will be taken on board, and any amendments which are considered justified will be brought forward on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

On Tuesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 12 December 1995.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Top
Share