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.