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."

Mr. Lydon

When this debate resumed in the House last week, a Senator claimed the tonnages handled by Limerick Harbour in 1994 was around 7 million tonnes, which was the second largest figure nationally after Dublin port. This was an impressive figure but it did not ring true so I looked at the figures. For the benefit of the House, I want to clarify the real situation. The impression may have been given that this 7 million tonnes was handled solely by the port of Limerick but if the figures are broken down, one will find a different situation.

The total tonnages handled in the Shannon Estuary, apart from Foynes Harbour, was 7,044,000 tonnes. The picture becomes clearer when these figures are broken down. On the Clare side of the River Shannon, the ESB power generating station at Moneypoint imported 1,914,000 tonnes of coal. The Shannon oil jetty, which is used for the importation of aviation fuel for Shannon Airport, handled 230,000 tonnes. On the Kerry side, the ESB oil terminal at Tarbert imported 386,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil. The Aughinish Alumina jetty — it is located in the parish of Foynes and is 20 miles from Limerick port to the south bank of the estuary — handled 4,065,000 tonnes. That leaves a balance of 449,000 tonnes handled by the port of Limerick.

The breakdown of figures is even more startling when they are put into percentages. For example, the tonnage handled at the Aughinish Alumina jetty — 4,065,000 tonnes — makes up 57.71 per cent of the total figure; the percentage for Moneypoint — 1,914,000 tonnes — is 27.17 per cent; the figure for Shannon oil jetty — 230,000 tonnes — is 3.27 per cent; the figure for the ESB Tarbert oil terminal — 386,000 tonnes, — is 5.48 per cent and the tonnage handled at Limerick docks, — 449,000 tonnes — is 6.37 per cent. This is a slightly different aspect to the way it was presented. I can now readily understand why the Minister changed the name of Shannon Port Company to Shannon Estuaries Port Company when the Bill was initiated, as this is more reflective of the Shannon Estuary. The title is more appropriate.

I was pleased to note that the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, acknowledged that the limits of Limerick Harbour had hitherto not been defined in any statute that could be traced. I am sure my colleague will confirm this. The Bill is useful in this respect as it will define the limits of Limerick Harbour for the first time.

I had the pleasure of serving with the Minister at county council level and can testify to his ability and intellect. He is a remarkable man. I also served with the Minister of State, another man of superb articulation, enunciation and pronunciation. The Minister has indicated that, based on the recent mediation between Foynes and Limerick Harbours, he will put down an amendment in the House to extend the limits of Foynes Harbour in accordance with the recommendations of the mediator.

Foynes Harbour handled 1,414,000 tonnes of commodities in 1994, three times more than the port. The extension to be given to Foynes, which will only be 4 per cent of the total estuary, will make for a very vibrant and competitive environment in the Shannon Estuary in the years ahead as larger vessels become the norm. This will serve the demands of Irish industry for the future, not alone in the mid-west region but on a national basis.

With regard to the revenues and surpluses generated by the combined commercial installations on the whole estuary, the total gross revenue generated by these facilities in 1994 was £1,842,000 compared to the gross revenue for the Foynes Harbour for the same period of £1,989,000, or a greater overall income of £157,000. The net surplus generated by all of the revenue generating facilities together was £212,000 in comparison to a stand alone figure of £793,000 generated by Foynes Harbour. This represents a difference of well over £500,000 in favour of Foynes vis-à-vis all the others combined.

Surely these figures indicate that Foynes Harbour is a market driven place. It appears that the job Limerick has ahead of it is to compete with Foynes on a better basis and to tackle the problem. Instead of being more management driven, Limerick would benefit if it was more market driven. It has very good facilities, a very good harbour and a vibrant city. More and more business could be done if it managed to get together a number of people, as Foynes did, and to get its act together.

It was suggested in the House that ghosting was a problem for Foynes Harbour Trustees. This is not true because the Foynes Harbour Trustees do not, or never have, employed dockers. This is done by a company known as Foynes Pay Office Limited, which has no link with the Foynes Harbour Trustees. Nevertheless, the extraordinary success story of Foynes Harbour is due, in no small way, to the unstinting role played by dockers. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to cast aspersions on a body of men who, in all kinds of weather conditions from extreme cold to degrees of heat, unload all kinds of material, including coal.

The same applies to finance. The reason Foynes is a success and a marker for the country is that those involved go out and engage in research to get the business. They have received no money from the State but they have always arranged investment on a joint venture basis with private enterprise and have always been successful in negotiating and repaying debts to commercial institutions. There is a great role here for Limerick to do likewise. It can be done if, instead of depending even for pension plans on the State, those involved in Limerick should look for and generate the business. Foynes did it with only a few people working hard and long hours and it can be done in other ports.

The reason I am so pleased with Foynes is that it represents the type of endeavour we need on a national basis. We need it in Killybegs, and where people have done similar work for the fish industry, which is prominent there. People have gone out, sourced income and developed the harbour with their own resources. I can think of a number of people who have done that — Séamus Tully of Western Seaboard Fishing Company and the Gallagher Brothers. They have built everything with their own money and have progressed. Other harbour commissioners could do likewise.

Ms Kelly

I welcome the Bill. It has long been recognised that there is a need to regulate our harbours and prepare them for the 21st century. I agree with what Senator Calnan said some weeks ago about the importance of local input in the management of local ports. There are many small fishing ports dotted around our coastline and there is a great need to develop them and our fishing industry. However, my contribution will deal with the port of Foynes. In doing so I compliment Foynes Harbour Board on its excellent lobbying over the past six or seven months. If everybody had as great an interest in their affairs as Foynes Harbour Board, much of the legislation going through the Oireachtas would be improved.

Foynes owes its charter to the Act of 1890. Its area of jurisdiction was confirmed in the Foynes Harbour Order, 1932, and has remained unchanged. It should be understood that in 1890 when the jurisdiction of the harbour was set out, the average size of vessel was about 250 dwt. The area of water within the limits fixed in 1890 was adequate for this size of vessel to anchor in safety. However, the port of Foynes has developed extensively over the past 30 years. It is now on a par with Dublin and Cork with regard to the size of vessel that can be accommodated, which is approximately 36,000 tonnes dwt — a huge increase from 250 dwt — and few other ports in the State can facilitate this type of vessel.

Foynes Harbour Trustees have increased trade to the port from 41,000 tonnes in 1963 to 1.4 million tonnes for the year ending 31 March 1995. The number of trading vessels for the same period has increased from 32 to 300 and the net registered tonnage of vessels has increased in the same period from 20,000 to 850,000. Foynes Harbour Trustees have spent £12.5 million over the past 25 years improving their marine and onshore facilities and in return have received a total of about £41,000 by way of State and EU grants. Much of the money spent in Foynes has been generated in Foynes. The money was spent on two new jetties, more land, increased warehousing, dredging and so forth.

Foynes Harbour is one of the most competitive ports to operate from an economic and industrial relations point of view. It is the only port on the west coast that has a direct rail link to the national rail system, with trains able to travel almost to the pier head. It is also located on the N69, a national secondary road which councillors in Limerick County Council are hoping the National Roads Authority will upgrade to a national primary road or, at least, carry out substantial works to the road to render it capable of carrying more heavy vehicles to the port. Employment in the port has increased from 30 in 1963 to 400 in 1995.

Its value to the economy of Limerick and to the mid-west is not to be left at just that figure because many of the industries setting up in County Limerick will need the port of Foynes to import and export their goods. It is evident that the growth and development of Foynes Harbour over the past 30 years has been phenomenal. The present trustees, and their predecessors, used well all the money which came their way to improve the harbour.

For Foynes to develop, it needs to accommodate larger vessels. It is important that it can use the deep water immediately adjacent to the existing harbour at Mount Trenchard Point. The port of Foynes has now developed to its maximum potential and it needs this extra space. Further economic expansion and development can only be achieved if it can attain the use of this deep water.

No other authority has plans for developing this water. Foynes will only use approximately five miles of the total shoreline in the estuary, leaving 125 miles or so to be used by other port authorities. Nobody can say Foynes is being greedy by looking for waters which it does not require; it is looking only for what it needs.

A recent survey by H. R. Wallingford, International Marine and Navigational Surveyors, showed that berth occupancy on the jetties in Foynes is as high as 82 per cent during the winter trade peak. This can result in excessive waiting times to supply berths to ships which result in high moorage charges being levied by foreign ship owners on Irish importers and exporters. This means that ships have to wait alongside Scattery Island with delay and demoorage costs as high as £6,000 per 24 hours delay on a vessel in excess of 15,000 dwt. It can take up to two and half hours to go from the port to the island and back.

It is imperative that Foynes is allowed deep water where ships can moor while waiting to dock in the harbour. Foynes has succeeded in attracting new industries to the port over the past 30 years but it needs deep water to be able to continue doing so.

I was pleased to hear that the Minister took on board the concerns of Foynes. The limits imposed on the harbour in the original Bill were not sufficient for its needs. The Minister appointed a mediator to examine the dispute between Foynes and Limerick. I will outline the terms of reference under which the mediator, Mr. Murphy, worked. This is important in the light of the contribution by Senator O'Sullivan. In a letter to Foynes Harbour Trustees, the Minister set out the conditions under which Mr. Murphy would operate. The letter stated:

The Minister would like to propose Mr. Patrick Murphy to act as independent mediator. As you know, Mr. Murphy, who acted as Chairman of the Commercial Harbours Review Group, is Chairman of Minch Norton and Managing Director of Irish Malt Products Ltd.

Terms of reference, as approved by the Minister, are attached...

The letter lists the terms of reference, which are:

To examine the application from Foynes Harbour Trustees for an extension of the limits of Foynes Harbour in the interests of the better management, control and operation (including the safe and proper navigational and technical handling) of vessels using the Port of Foynes and development of the harbour and approach channels thereto;

To discuss the application in detail with Foynes Harbour Trustees;

To discuss the application in detail with Limerick Harbour Commissioners;

To assess the cases put by both parties; in this regard to avail of any technical or other assistance or advice as the mediator may decide;

To decide on the application from Foynes Harbour Trustees and to make a recommendation on the matter.

I want to highlight part of the terms of reference which states "(including the safe and proper navigational and technical handling) of vessels using the Port of Foynes". This means the mediator's job is to ensure that all safety standards are adhered to. We assume the Minister had full confidence in the mediator appointed. As no one suggested otherwise, we must accept that the proposals submitted by the mediator to the Minister, which were agreed in advance by Foynes Harbour Trustees, took into account all aspects of the dispute between Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Foynes Harbour Trustees and the safety aspect as well. The recommendations from the mediator, which Senator Neville may have read, state:

I have now concluded my investigations into the application of Foynes Harbour Trustees for an extension of jurisdiction.

I recommend 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. [Foynes Harbour Trustees agreed to this but they had hoped for something better.]

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, as per the attached map, 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.

Although this recommendation only gives Foynes approximately 50% of the increased jurisdiction they requested, I feel it is the only fair and balanced solution to the dispute between the two parties concerned, and I am convinced that if you decide to implement my considered recommendation, we will see an even healthier, more efficient, competitive environment for international trade in the Shannon Estuary in future years.

These recommendations were signed by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy on 15 November 1995. In his Second Stage speech the Minister said:

I am pleased to be able to advise the House that I have accepted the mediator's recommendation and that I propose introducing an amendment on Committee Stage to redefine the limits of Foynes Harbour.

I would ask that the Minister's word be adhered to. Although fears were expressed by my colleague Senator O'Sullivan in this House last week, they were in many ways unfounded. I would like to answer some of the points she raised, including whether large Panamax ships will be able to manoeuvre in the estuary, and her concerns about bad weather and strong currents in the estuary.

The mediator's recommendations leave a clear five cables, or 3,000 feet width, to the north for ships to pass each other in this very safe stretch of water. When one considers that the beam of Panamax ships is in the region of 110 to 130 feet, and that of a Cape sized ship between 140 and 160 feet, simple arithmetic demonstrates that ships can safely pass each other in the estuary. In fact, it has been said that four Cape sized ships, side by side, could pass each other in safety at one point.

A study of maps of the area shows that there is a considerable amount of deep water between the limit suggested by the mediator, Mr. Murphy, and the Clare coast. To the north of the limit set on Foynes there is quite deep water practically to the Clare coast.

Meteorological records show that bad weather and poor visibility are rarely experienced in the Shannon Estuary. In the past, Foynes would not have been chosen as the port for flying boats if there had been a history of fog and poor visibility. The estuary is known for its clear visibility. True there are currents but they are predictable and any good pilot knowing their strength can manoeuvre around them.

In any case, before ships can reach that stretch of water north of Foynes they have to pass the Tarbert race with currents running at five knots in a much narrower and meandering channel. Further on from Foynes and closer to Aughinish pier they have to negotiate between two rocks marked by buoys.

To the east and west of the Foynes stretch of water there are danger points for ships but to my knowledge there has never been a serious accident in the estuary. If you can negotiate a danger to the right or left it is foolish to suggest that you will suddenly encounter a danger in the middle which is totally safe.

The new limits granted to Foynes will not impose added hazards for navigation. On the contrary, if the limits are not set as proposed by the mediator the danger to ships berthing outside and waiting to unload at Foynes will be greater. At that point they are outside the jurisdiction of the harbour master who, for their safe conduct, needs to have control of ships from the time they leave the main channel until their arrival at the port of Foynes.

Foynes itself needs this added jurisdiction so that it can install permanent mooring buoys to cut down on ships' waiting time. If a ship was in danger and needed to move to any other port in the estuary, thus using the water that would technically belong to Foynes, good navigational practice and co-operation between the two bodies would ensure the safety of everybody using the estuary.

The Minister may need to look again at the role of harbour masters and their need to be present at board meetings. The harbour masters do not want voting rights at the table but they are anxious because their role extends to other legislation. Among other things, they have a role to play in the context of dangerous substances and they have duties over and above those defined in this Bill.

Their expertise may be of vital importance to any board making a decision about the safety of cargo coming into the port. Their opinion is sought because they would be more aware of the relevant legislation than board members. It is vitally important that the harbour masters' professional opinion should be sought at all times. If they are excluded it would add a safety hazard to the operation of harbours, particularly the larger ones which deal with such a variety of cargoes.

I thank the Minister of State for his attention and I hope he will take on board some of the points that have been made. I look forward to an amended Bill on Committee Stage that will address, particularly from my constituency's point of view, the needs of Foynes Harbour.

Mr. R. Kiely

I welcome the Minister to the House. This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome him since he became a Minister of State and I wish him well.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Bill and when I have concluded, I am sure there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that Senator Kelly and I come from the same constituency. The purpose of the Bill is to restructure the management framework of port authorities by establishing State commercial companies to manage the 12 bigger ports.

The Bill provides for the setting up of commercial State companies to manage and operate the ports of Arklow, Cork, Drogheda, Dublin, Dundalk, Foynes, Galway, New Ross, Shannon, Waterford and Wicklow. At present these ports are managed by harbour authorities in accordance with the Harbours Act, 1946. The new companies will be formed and registered under the Companies Act and the State will be the sole shareholder in each company.

Existing harbour boards range in number from nine to 29 members and comprise representatives of local authorities, chambers of commerce, trade union interests, IBEC, the livestock trade, shipping and ministerial nominees. The view taken by the review group was that structures of this nature — 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 effective way of managing ports. The group recommended that the board of directors of new port companies should have seven members, including employee representations, the chairman and chief executive. It further recommended that the non-executive director should be appointed by the Minister with a five year term of office and should be drawn from the commercial sector and that persons with a vested business interest in the affairs of the port should not be given representations.

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

I am pleased this decision was taken because local authority members who were appointed to boards contributed to the successful operation of these ports. There are members of local authorities on the board in Foynes and I am sure the Minister recognised their contribution and value. A Member of the Oireachtas cannot be a member of the board of State companies but that has never worried me. A colleague said he did not know whether it was a good or a bad thing to exclude members of local authorities but I am sure they will continue to contribute to the successful running of these boards.

A new Harbours Bill is long overdue. It is 50 years since the last legislation was enacted. That legislation was introduced by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass, and many famous names contributed, including General Mulcahy, John A. Costello, Maurice Dockrell and Senators Kingston and Sweetman; it got a fair airing. At that time ports were under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce but there is now a Department of the Marine which was established by Charles Haughey when he was Taoiseach. We must congratulate him on that because a Minister for the Marine was seen as essential at the time given of the contribution of ports and the marine to the economy.

This Bill has been threatened for a long time and attempts have been made to amend the 1946 legislation. A Harbours Bill was introduced in 1986 by the then Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Deputy Nealon. The purpose of that Bill was to provide for the setting up of a unified harbour authority to be known as the Shannon Ports Authority to take over the management and operation the existing harbours of Limerick and Kilkrush together with the publicly owned piers Tarbert, Saleen, Kilteery and Clarecastle in the Shannon Estuary. The proposed new authority was to exercise jurisdiction over all the waters of the Shannon Estuary from Sarsfield Bridge in Limerick to a line drawn from Kerry Head to Loop Head, excluding Foynes Harbour. The Bill was to provide enabling powers for the future amalgamation of Foynes with the new authority.

There was opposition to that provision. Foynes Harbour Trustees were established in 1890 under the Foynes Harbour Order which laid down the existing jurisdiction of Foynes Harbour, 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. 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 that can be accommodated, which is approximately 36,000 dwt. No other port in the State can facilitate this size vessel. Foynes Harbour Trustees have increased trade through the port from 41,000 tonnes in 1963 to 1,414,000 tonnes 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 registered tonnage of vessels has increased for the same period from 20,000 to 850,000. Over the past 25 years Foynes Harbour Trustees have expended a sum of £12.5 million improving its marine and onshore facilities and has only received a total of £1.3 million by way of State-EU grants, which represents 10.4 per cent of capital expenditure.

Because of the success prior to 1986, I opposed the provisions in the Bill which provided enabling powers for the full amalgamation of Foynes with the new authority. I was the only Member of the Seanad from west Limerick at the time and I am delighted that there are other Members from that area to help me with this Bill.

I moved amendments on Committee Stage to rectify an anomaly. Section 13 stated that Minister could by order dissolve Foynes Harbour Trustees on a date specified in the order. The Minister did not accept my amendment on that occasion. However, before the Bill concluded the Dáil was dissolved — God forbid it should happen on this occasion — and that is why this legislation is before us.

I welcome the limits of the jurisdiction of Foynes Harbour. The Minister said that following publication of the Harbours Bill, 1995, he appointed Mr. Patrick J. Murphy to act as independent mediator between Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Foynes Harbour Trustees in the matter of an application from Foynes for an extension of its area of jurisdiction.

At present Foynes controls only a small area of water in the immediate vicinity of the harbour. An extension of the limits of Foynes Harbour would involve an encroachment on the area over which Limerick Harbour Commissioners have exercised jurisdiction. The limits of Limerick Harbour have never been defined in any statute which can be traced. However, Limerick Harbour Commissioners have exercised jurisdiction over the Shannon Estuary, with the exception of the harbours of Foynes, Cappa Pier at Kilrush, Glin, Tarbert and Kildysart.

The mediation process commenced in October and the mediator's report and recommendation were received on 16 November 1995. The mediator has recommended that the western limit of Foynes Harbour be extended and that the extension should comprise the entire area below the 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. The Minister said he was pleased to be able to advise the House that he had accepted the mediator's recommendation and that he proposed to introduce an amendment on Committee State to redefine the limits of Foynes Harbour.

This is most welcome for the Foynes Harbour Trustees and I understand they are happy to accept the recommendation. It is not what they sought as they wanted jurisdiction of a wide area of the Shannon. However, they are happy to accept the mediator's decision and I presume other interests in the Shannon Estuary are also happy in that regard.

The Shannon Estuary runs from Limerick to the mouth of the Shannon river, that is, between Loop Head and Kerry Head. Given that both shores are 65 miles in length, the total shoreline is 130 miles. The jurisdiction of Foynes harbour shoreline will be five miles from that total. This may not appear fair but the Foynes Harbour Trustees are prepared to accept the mediator's recommendation. I am sure the House will agree this is most magnanimous on their part.

The Foynes Harbour Trustees sought an extension of their limits for the following reasons: the proper management and control in respect of navigation, safe handling and operation of vessels, guard walls and insulation of the port; to provide safe moorings, anchorages for the size of vessels using the port within the extended limits of jurisdiction; and the provision of future deep water berthage within the extended limits for the continued and proper commercial development of the port. Since the mediator's report was announced some concerns have been expressed about safety. I understand these points were considered by the mediator, Mr. Patrick J. Murphy, when he examined the request of Foynes Harbour for an extension of its limits.

The first matter to note is that the limits for Foynes Harbour recommended by the mediator in his report of 15 November 1995 were accepted by the Minister in introducing the Bill and they are not the limits originally sought by Foynes. When the accepted limits are put before the House on Committee Stage. I am certain Members will be reassured on the question of safety which licensed pilots on the river raised with the mediator.

In his report to the Minister, the mediator indicated he was satisfied the new limits for Foynes Harbour would not pose any safety risks to incoming or outgoing ships navigating the esturial channel for destinations other than Foynes Harbour. The Minister said the Bill would not only extend the limits of Foynes but would enshrine for the first time ever the limits of Limerick Harbour. This clear definition of jurisdiction of the Shannon Estuary will contribute to the safety of operations there. For the first time control and responsibility in the river will be clearly defined.

It is important to note in relation to the safety of operations in this part of the Shannon Estuary that a ship navigating there, whether in the limits of Foynes or Limerick Harbours, will be under the pilotage of a qualified person appointed for the pilotage district. In addition, it will be subject to directions by the appropriate harbour master. The harbour limits recommended by the mediator and accepted by the Minister will separate ships manoeuvring to use Foynes Harbour from ships in passage through the estuary.

It has long been recognised by the United Nations International Maritime Organisation that the best way to avoid collisions between ships is to keep them on separate routes rather than relying on the tactical rules to ensure they avoid each other. Apart from the need to keep ships manoeuvring to use Foynes Harbour separate from those passing through the estuary, there is also the need to keep the ships passing through the estuary clear of any berths which may be developed by Foynes.

In relation to large vessels in the channel bound for Aughinish Alumina, it must be recognised that equally large vessels will be bound for Foynes Harbour. They must share the waterway. The waters within the limits of Foynes Harbour will be available for use by vessels bound for Aughinish Alumina should they wish or need to use them, much as the waters of the rest of the estuary are available to ships bound for Foynes. However, at this part of the estuary, the deepest and safest waters are to the north side of the channel away from Foynes Harbour. Rineanna Peak Point on the County Clare coast is lit and presents no danger to ships passing close. The currents there are predictable as they are away from the confluence of the Foynes Island channel with the main channel.

It must be recognised that this is one of the safest stretches of the estuary. It is eight cables wide at this point, which is approximately one statute mile in width, and has no shoals except for ships entering Foynes. It is sheltered from the sea and rarely has fog, which is one of the reasons it was used as a flying boat base for transatlantic aircraft before Shannon Airport was built. Senator Kelly also mentioned this benefit. The Meteorological Office records of recent years for the Shannon Estuary confirm this point.

The limits recommended by the mediator and accepted by the Minister leave a clear five cables, half a nautical mile, to the north for ships to pass without crossing the new limits for Foynes. Only two cables of the available width is given to Foynes for the direction of moorings and for ships manoeuvring to use these facilities, although clearly such ships will have use of the Limerick Harbour waters just as those bound for Limerick will be free to use the Foynes waters. A fairer division might have been — as Foynes originally sought — if the mediator had fixed the limits in the middle of the waterway, thereby allocating a four cable width to ships passing through the estuary and four cables to Foynes Harbour. Limerick Harbour, supported by licensed pilots, want all the water, leaving nothing for Foynes.

Foynes Harbour is a success story and wishes to achieve further development. At all times, it provided suitable industrial facilities to port users in terms of land warehouse facilities and other support services in order to carry on commercial activities in both areas. It was stated earlier that significant development within the port area has been carried out over the years. At present, some seven hectares, that is 17 acres, are available as service land. There is a proposal for an additional 60 hectares, that is 150 acres, from Irish Cement Limited for land in the east of the current development area.

The trustees have also entered negotiations with Limerick County Council towards the provision of land for a road corridor to link the port with the national primary route, the N69, on the eastern side of the village of Foynes. Such a link would avoid heavy port traffic through Foynes and create proper and ordered development of the areas adjacent to the harbour. My colleagues from west Limerick, Senator Neville and Senator Kelly, have appealed to the National Roads Authority — I am sure they have also made appeals through their membership of Limerick County Council — to make provision to improve that national primary route which connects Foynes to the main routes. They also pointed out that Foynes is already served by a rail link to the harbour which is used by port users for carrying oil, molasses, animal feed, fertilisers and coal. Potential future development would also be served by this rail link.

Foynes has a justifiable case. It sought jurisdiction to which it thought it was entitled. It did not receive it originally and the mediator was asked to review the situation. He did so and recommended the five mile shore, from a point in Foynes island to a point in the White River. The White River is only a small river but it has been mentioned here so often it will become well known. It is only reasonable that the Minister would accept the mediator's recommendation.

Another purpose of the Bill is to set up a commercial State company to manage and operate Dún Laoghaire Harbour which is at present operated by the Department of the Marine. I am sure the Minister and the Minister of State will welcome that provision as they are from that constituency.

There are many concerns about presumed anomalies from areas other than Foynes. In the Waterford and New Ross areas a similar case arises; New Ross is on the River Barrow and Waterford is on the River Suir but the rivers meet before they reach the sea. There are concerns about unfair charges but I am sure the Minister will address these and arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Cosgrave

I welcome my constituency colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore. The marine brief is being well looked after by people from Dún Laoghaire — the Minister, Deputy Barrett, the Minister of State and recently the former Minister, Deputy Andrews.

Listening to the last speaker I thought this was a Foynes Bill but there have obviously been many representations from that area to Members of the House which is a good indication that people are actively interested in the Bill but there has also been extensive correspondence from other areas and I am sure the Minister will take the various points made on board.

Although there are some provisions relating to companies and pilotage, the Bill could be roughly divided in two main elements. The first deals with the ports of Arklow, Cork, Drogheda, Dublin, Dundalk, Foynes, Galway, New Ross, Shannon, Waterford and Wicklow. The second is more pertinent to me and the Minister of State in that it is dealing with operation of Dún Laoghaire Harbour.

It is 50 years since the Harbours Act, 1945, was debated in the Houses. The extensive changes in this Bill are overdue and are to be welcomed. Representations made by interested parties around the country should be taken on board. The Minister has gone some way towards meeting their demands and concerns. Like others I was lobbied in connection with this Bill. I accept what the Minister said with regard to accepting the mediator's report. If Foynes is to get certain concessions I hope they will not be to the disadvantage of any other port and that what is agreed will be a success and that boards will not disagree with each other. Ultimately, I hope the harbours and their users will be the beneficiaries. I am sure the Minister has taken on board the various points made. Foynes has had extensive mention in this debate. We have had a broad debate and the Minister indicated he would be accepting the mediator's report.

The previous speaker referred to safety in ports and this must be looked at. There have been too many accidents at sea. Recently there was a tragedy on the west coast and while there was a fatality in a recent tragedy on the east coast that could have been much worse. Safety at sea and the accidents that occur during the holiday season in particular must be kept in mind. I am sure the Minister readily agrees that steps must be taken to tighten up safety and checks. On a motor car a faulty tyre or faulty engine often brings the vehicle to a stop but where boats are concerned the consequences can be much more serious.

Recent changes have been brought about in the operation of Dún Laoghaire Harbour and in that respect I compliment the Minister and the Minister of State, and the previous Minister, Deputy Andrews. Despite concerns and objections what is happening in Dún Laoghaire will stand the test of time. The development of the harbour with the new ferry terminal will be of great importance to those using the harbour for travel or freight purposes. I support what the Ministers have done in trying to strike the right balance for port usage.

I pay tribute to those who were involved in the harbour works through the years and those who will bridge the gap with the new harbour company. Some of these people are near retirement or are availing of a redundancy or early retirement package and I hope they will be adequately looked after.

I was concerned to hear the Minister say on Second Stage that in some areas there seems to be an acute shortfall in relation to pension plans. I do not think this relates to Dún Laoghaire but the Minister might alleviate any fears in his reply. We are all concerned about people who have paid into pension funds as, in the past, in certain companies we have seen shortfalls of funds in relation to the provision of pensions. Those who have given years of their lives to companies and are soon facing retirement do not want to be suddenly faced with having to retire on a very inadequate pension. Pensions can be small enough without an extra shortfall.

Will the Minister clarify the situation in relation to Dún Laoghaire and the other areas mentioned? I understand that the Exchequer will make up the shortfall but it is important to state emphatically that there will be no danger of people being short changed. I presume that the status of the staff and their various pensions and benefits will automatically pass with them when they move to the new company in Dún Laoghaire and that any losses will be made up by the Department.

It has been mentioned that the harbour police will also transfer. I pay tribute to the work they have done but there have been concerns at times about people being attacked on the west and east piers of Dún Laoghaire Harbour. Is the Minister satisfied that there is an adequate number of harbour police in this area? The piers are very popular throughout the year, particularly during the summer, and are used from morning until night. Does the Minister think there should be greater liaison between the harbour police and the Garda Síochána?

For many people Dún Laoghaire is the gateway to Ireland. I hope there will be a greater tie-up between this new company, Dún Laoghaire Chamber of Commerce and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in promoting Dún Laoghaire as a great tourist area. With the new road network coming on stream, many people will start their holidays at Dún Laoghaire and the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company should help to promote the area in conjunction with the chamber of commerce and the county council, which is doing a great deal to attract extra tourists.

When the board is being established due consideration should be given to getting the right people — and I do not mean having specific political affiliations — who will be truly representative of the area, with the chamber of commerce, county council, worker directors, the tourist trade and so on represented. In that way, we can be assured that the board will comprise the best people for the job. I will not address the pros and cons of the Dún Laoghaire and Dublin ports because there is enough traffic for both. However, I hope the best people will be appointed to Dún Laoghaire Harbour Board — people who will have the good of the area at heart, people with the vision to plan for the future, people with the experience and the ability to deal with every problem.

I ask the Minister to listen to the points made in relation to various areas. Questions have been raised about Foynes, New Ross, Waterford and other areas. I am sure that the Minister will take the points on board and respond as positively as he can. I thank the Irish Shipping Agents' Association which has certain concerns. I received correspondence from all over the country in recent weeks, each with their own local case to make. I am sure the Minister and his officials have been made aware of these cases and I hope they will respond positively to the matters which have been raised. I support the Bill and matters which require clarification or amendment can be dealt with on Committee or Report Stages.

Mr. Mooney

I also welcome the Minister of State. We all welcome the Minister's initiative in bringing forward this legislation. Disagreement, such as it is, seems to be on the detail of the Bill. I do not propose to go down the road which has been well trodden by my colleagues, particularly my friend and colleague Senator Rory Kiely, who, as one who comes from that area and represents it so well, articulated far better than I could the concerns which have been expressed by the Foynes Harbour Trustees and those from New Ross.

Coming from an inland county, I cannot begin to fully appreciate and understand the passions and emotions aroused by legislation which impinges to a greater or lesser degree on long standing practices. I am sure the Minister would agree that one of the purposes of this Bill is to consolidate a great deal of legislation in this area. It finally defines territories and boundaries as well as functions, which have been long sought by individual harbour boards.

It is interesting to read the full page of Acts referred to in the Bill. The earliest legislation dates back to the Napoleonic Wars of 1815. If the Minister is so inclined, he might clarify to what British statute 55 Geo. 3, c.191 of 1815 relates. I do not wish to have his hard pressed staff scurrying around looking for it but it would be of historical interest to know how it relates to this Bill. From my discussions with a number of people on both sides of the issue, I gather the main legislation in this area was enacted towards the latter part of the last century and that this Bill will tidy up many of the loose ends from 1895 which were not addressed in the post-war harbours Bills.

I also record my appreciation of the marvellous work done by representatives of the harbour authorities in Limerick, Foynes, New Ross and Waterford. I single out my friends and colleagues Councillor John Griffin from Rathkeale and Councillor Kevin Sheehan from Askeaton, who have been of tremendous help in informing me, as a landlubber, of the intricacies of the Bill and giving their perspective on the controversy on boundary limits and jurisdiction which the Minister will address. I add my voice to those who have impressed on the Minister the need to clear up this matter once and for all. We await his final decision but he has given certain indications which are now a matter of public record through correspondence with the various interests, particularly those associated with Foynes.

It is important to record the conclusions of the Foynes representatives to which it is difficult to find objections. A submission on behalf of the Foynes Harbour Trustees states:

The mediator in his report to the Minister indicated he was satisfied the new limits for Foynes Harbour would not pose any safety risks for incoming or outgoing ships navigating the Estuarial Channel for destinations other than Foynes Harbour.

Another telling remark was made in this submission, with which none of us could take umbrage, least of all the Minister. It is a simple straightforward statement of fact:

Historically the Estuary has been shared by all who live there. It has to be shared now and in the future.

That is the nub of this debate, irrespective of the turf war which seems to have broken out between Limerick and Foynes. One can find a parallel with the discussions towards eventual peace in this island. Geographically this is one entity, notwithstanding our differences. We will have to work them out as we all live on one island. Compromise is the key in that area as much as this.

My bias would be with the people from Foynes as they have not got everything they wanted, whereas the people from Limerick want everything and refuse to accept less. Fair compromise should win the day. The strength of the mediator's report, in coming down on that side, speaks for itself. The questions raised about large vessels, channels and safety have been dealt with in great detail. Senator Kiely put them eloquently on the record and I do not intend to repeat them.

I was interested in the historical context in which Foynes came to public notice. As a youngster I was fascinated by the terminology of Rineanna and Foynes — I thought they were somewhere in the north Atlantic and not part of Ireland, because they sounded so exotic, especially in the context of flying boats and air travel. It was wonderful grist to a child's imagination. It is said that one learns something new every day and going through these briefing documents I learned that the main reason Foynes was used for airships was that it was devoid of fog and was a sheltered inlet, which was extremely important in the days before radar. For that reason it was used as a flying boat base for transatlantic aircraft before Shannon Airport was built.

The message on this issue has been fully put to the Minister and I will not bore either him or the House with it other than to record my support for the concepts as outlined by the Foynes representatives and the strength of the mediator's recommendations. I also note a letter dated 17 November from Mr. J.F. O'Malley, secretary of Foynes Harbour Trustees, to Ms Noreen O'Mahony of the commercial harbours section of the Department of the Marine, which states:

I could understand from our telephone conversation today that the appropriate amendment for the Foynes Harbour Trustees jurisdiction extension will be incorporated in the amendments which will be placed before the Seanad.

We look forward to the Minister delivering on that commitment, if commitment it is.

The dispute between New Ross and Waterford seems just as intractable. I wish the Minister well because he will need the wisdom of Solomon to deal with it, especially in regard to costings; whether New Ross should pay more than it does and whether the fact that Waterford is seeking more money from New Ross for less use of its services means that New Ross will trade at a competitive disadvantage. Waterford Chamber of Commerce's submission states that there is no problem. New Ross Harbour Commissions state that there is a problem relating primarily to finance.

As a caveat, I welcome the recent announcement of significant EU funding for the development of New Ross and Dún Laoghaire Harbours. This is long overdue. I could never understand why, as an island nation, we seemed to deny this reality, even to the extent of our low consumption of fish, yet in many other ways we suffer the negative effects of living on an island; we have an island mentality and we are not always as outward looking as we should be.

New Ross has a legitimate argument. Ships bound for that port must pass through part of Waterford Harbour. At present these ships are charged light dues at the same rate as vessels proceeding to Waterford, despite the fact that New Ross ships use less than half the lights in the estuary. Waterford Harbour Commissioners collect some £45,000 per annum in light dues from New Ross ships. This charge is not related to the cost of providing the lights and in the view of the New Ross Harbour Commissioners it makes their port uncompetitive.

The New Ross Harbour Commissioners charge that the Minister's amendment to section 13 (8) of the Bill, introduced on Report Stage in the Dáil, allows for the continuation of this inequitable position — perhaps the Minister has justification for this. The New Ross Harbour Commissioners have sought a deletion of his amendment, substituting another provision for it which has some merit.

Pilotage is compulsory for inbound vessels in the Waterford Estuary. The New Ross Harbour Commissioners recommend that it should be optional for vessels of less than 8,000 tonnes dwt from Dunmore East to Ballyhack/ Passage East and that New Ross pilots should board at the latter point and proceed through the Barrow Bridge to New Ross. I would be interested to hear the Minister's arguments why he chose one over the other.

The Irish Ships' Agents Association was referred to by my distinguished colleague, Senator Cosgrave. Both the Minister and Members on all sides of the House have been inundated with documents relating very specifically to two areas. This is a wonderful development for democracy. Lobbying is a part of democracy and any Government will ignore lobbying at its peril. I am glad we have an opportunity to act as a conduit for many of the concerns expressed by people outside the House who may sometimes feel they are marginalised or isolated or do not find Government accessible. From that point of view it is important that people like my colleagues and I should articulate these concerns and if we support them, we should put that on the record. At the end of the day the Minister as representative of the people will make his decision based on fairness. We might not agree with it but that is democracy.

The Irish Ships' Agents Association referred to charges and they have been corresponding with the Minister on the question of a bond. As I understand it the legislation was not definitive in this regard. It seemed to be equivocal at best. The bond will not be required from all agents but the legislation does not specify from whom it will be required. The view of the Irish Ships' Agents Association is that, in principle, it should not apply at all. They are against a requirement for a bond. I am interested to know why the Minister feels it necessary that they should have a bond. I know that a bond operates in other professions, in the travel trade, for example. Is this connected with the possibility of liquidation or the possibility of a charge on innocent victims of bankruptcy?

I wish to discuss the safety aspect which was touched on by Senator Cosgrave. I am particularly interested in section 52 of the Bill. This section refers indirectly to nuclear weapons. It says that the harbour master of a harbour may refuse entry into the harbour of a ship or a vehicle or any other conveyance that is carrying nuclear material. How is the harbour master to police this? Is it not true that the Americans have as Government policy, made it clear that they will not reveal to any Government, friendly or otherwise, what visiting frigates or major carriers are holding in cargo when they enter a friendly port?

This question arose in Dublin within the last three to four years when Dublin Corporation passed a by-law which made Dublin a nuclear free zone. Around the same time an American frigate was visiting and when questions were raised about the propriety of such a vessel, which seemed to be nuclear, coming into Dublin port, and when questions were raised with the American Administration, they refused to confirm or deny whether there was any nuclear material on board and stated their policy was that they did not make any comment. Why then include this provision? Is it just aspirational? Is it there because it looks good that we are against nuclear material and nuclear weapons? I do not see much point in including it if it cannot be policed and monitored. The legislation states that the harbour master has the right to board. I hardly think it would possible to simply march onto the ship and ask to see the cargo. I cannot see how it is possible to reconcile reality with aspiration here.

I am interested to know about the role of Customs officers and the power that seems to be given to harbour masters here. I could be misinterpreting this entirely, but the Minister is well versed in this legislation and will straighten me out in that regard. Is the power of harbour masters extensive to the degree that it can override other organs of State, for example, the Navy who may wish to board a vessel, or Customs officers who may be of the opinion that a particular ship is carrying drugs and wish to board it? Do they have to seek the permission of the harbour master? Is it then under the jurisdiction of the harbour master rather than the forces of law and order?

The reason I raise this question is obvious. As we develop further and as Ireland develops its resources to an even greater degree, our ports will become more of an attraction. With the "fortress Europe" concept growing apace, we are the most vulnerable to the importation of drugs, being an island on the periphery, so I wonder if any attention has been given to those considerations in this legislation or are those considerations outside its remit? In the context of the powers of the harbour master — from my reading of these sections they seem to be very extensive — what is the role of the forces of law and order, specifically Customs officers and the Navy, perhaps chasing a ship into port? These questions may seem nebulous at this stage but it is possible that this could happen and I want to know whether the legislation takes account of that.

I welcome the Bill; it is comprehensive legislation which is long overdue. In a way this goes back to the old perception of Government, if you do not give somebody a particular job to do then much is left undone. The fact that the Minister is in this specific Department is good. Up to some years ago we did not have a Department of the Marine; now we have a junior Minister to that Department with a specific brief to develop this important area. It might never have happened because it might not have been high on our list of priorities and that would have been a pity. From that point of view the Minister's sojourn in this brief over the last 12 months has been enlightening and developmental.

The Minister's enthusiasm and commitment is beyond question so I have no reason to doubt that his defence of this legislation will have been well thought out. At the same time, certain questions have to be raised. The concerns of the specific local bodies which have been lobbying hard must be addressed because this is a matter of commercial life and death to them. I hope that the weight of evidence, especially in relation to the Foynes/Limerick controversy will come down on the side of the people of Foynes. A compromise can be arrived at which will allow both sides to operate on that stretch of water. Like many other things in life, that water will be there long after the Limerick and Foynes Harbour Commissioners.

Similarly, I am sure there can be some equitable agreement with New Ross and Waterford. It seems a little unfair that New Ross should have to pay for a service they do not need. Perhaps it is an element of the competition that is between both ports, but I am sure compromises can be found. I, like many others, would be very interested to hear the Minister's comments and his responses to the very strong lobby in those areas. I would be very interested in the powers of the harbour masters and how they will operate under this legislation. Overall, I wish the legislation well.

Mr. Reynolds

I will not be like my esteemed colleague from County Leitrim who went around all the ports in the country. I will take the late Tipp O Neill's advice and will be very parochial about my politics. I wish to make a plea for the inclusion of Sligo Harbour and Sligo port in this Bill. The legislation is very welcome and it should have been enacted long ago but I know the Minister and Minister of State have worked very hard on this over the last number of months and I am glad to see the legislation before the House. As I stated, my plea is on behalf of Sligo port.

The Harbours Acts, 1946 and 1976, apply to 25 harbour authorities listed in a Schedule to the Harbours Act, 1946. The report of the Review Group on Commercial Harbours and Pilotage Policy and Legislation of June 1992 recommends a number of harbours should be managed by commercial State companies with non-executive directors drawn from the commercial sector of the economy. The review group recommends this State company status for 11 ports in the Schedule to the 1946 Act and for Dún Laoghaire, all of which had traffic in excess of 200,000 tonnes in 1990.

Of the remaining 14 ports in the Schedule, nine had no commercial traffic in 1990 and Kilrush only had 4,000 tonnes -Senator Taylor-Quinn will be delighted to hear that. This left the Kinsale, Youghal, Tralee, Fenit and Sligo commercial ports with traffic of between 32,000 and 91,000 tonnes in 1990. The recommendation for the smaller schedule harbours in chapter eight of the review group's report was that responsibility for most of these harbours be transferred to local authorities. The fact is that the recommendation refers to most of the remaining 14 ports and not all of them supports the case that Sligo, Tralee, Fenit, Youghal and Kinsale fall into a different commercial category than the other small harbours which have little or no commercial activity.

The review group states that ports cannot operate in the commercial customer oriented manner expected of modern service industries within the framework of the present unduly restrictive legislation. Local authority type practices and controls are not compatible with the market driven approach required in modern commercial harbours. Sligo port should not be left in a non-regarded category between State company and local authority responsibility where it could only stagnate and decline because of the absence of State or EU recognition. It must have State company status for its harbours if it is to develop commercially and successfully for the future.

Sligo is the regional capital of the north-west and is the focus for access by road, rail, sea and air for neighbouring counties both north and south of the Border. It has traditionally served commerce over a 50 mile radius. The port has been used as a regional resource for more than 200 years. Its convenience for serving the Border counties is clear. However, it is always at a natural disadvantage as far as economic development is concerned because of its remote location and its relatively undeveloped infrastructure. To maintain necessary services and overcome the underlying causes of unemployment and emigration in this region requires special consideration in both national and EU transport policies so there is a possibility of a more even spread of economic prosperity.

The National Development Plan, 1994-99, states, as one of the three main objectives of the port development programme, to assist sub-regional development. The plan proposes a major investment of £100 million and while it has indicated that most of it will be for the strategic corridor ports of Dublin Bay, Waterford, Cork, Rosslare and the Shannon Estuary, there is also provision for investment in the main regional ports to support regional development.

Sligo port is entirely commercial and it has real business significance for firms in the area as well as providing permanent and temporary employment, both directly and indirectly. While its traffic is modest compared to larger volumes achieved in the east and south coast harbours, it has a special strategic importance as the only real commercial port between Counties Derry and Galway. Considerable sums of public and private moneys have been invested in its facilities over the years. In common with other commercial ports in the country, Sligo port suffers from legislative restrictions, difficulty of raising capital for investment, inadequate facilities, outmoded restrictive practices and unduly expensive cargo handling. At present, the commissioners are powerless to get involved in resolving many of these existing problems.

Taking into account the remoteness from which the west coast suffers, especially the isolation of the north-west, the most peripheral region in the EU which shares an important Border with Northern Ireland, there is a clear need for an integrated regional transport system covering rail, road, sea and air. Sligo port is an established link in this system and should receive appropriate State and EU support to enable it to continue its role of facilitating the overall economic development of the region. In the current circumstances of cross-Border business activity and plans to greatly improve the road network linking County Sligo to its neighbouring counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone, there are real possibilities for increased commercial usage of Sligo port for both importing and exporting from Northern Ireland.

There is no comparable port between Counties Galway and Derry to serve commercial traffic for the whole of the north-west. It is vital for both the national and regional interests that it is maintained and its facilities upgraded, reflecting its strategic importance as a vital item of regional infrastructure.

As someone coming from a Border county, I can see that business is inclined to go to Larne port. A new masonite plant will be built in County Leitrim. Masonite will be exported to EU member states and Sligo port should be upgraded to cater for this work. There is also a large development of the timber industry in the north-west and the future for exports looks bright. I do not want to be parochial, but if Sligo port can be developed adequately, a large number of jobs could be provided in those industries over the next number of years.

Sligo is part of the Border region which suffers from levels of unemployment and income per head that are considerably lower than the EU average and is affected by its peripherality from the national capital. As such, it is covered by the INTERREG Programme, 1994-99, which aims to improve the economic position of cross-Border regions. Sligo port, which is the only west coast commercial harbour in the peripheral Border region eligible for INTERREG funding, should receive serious consideration from this relevant EU programme.

Considerable sums of money have been spent by the harbour commissioners and the State in providing and maintaining facilities at Sligo port. As recently as 1984, major dredging operations were carried out to increase the depth in the approach channel and the berths at a cost of £690,000. Since then, from its own resources the port has spent more than £10,000 annually for regular maintenance dredging to maintain the required depths. Also from its own resources, the harbour board also undertook the reconstruction of a deep water jetty to enable the port to handle vessels of up to 3,000 tonne capacity. This involved the capital expenditure of £128,000. At present, the harbour has four working jetties, two at deep water berths and two at the upper quay. The port has two 25 tonne mobile cranes and the harbour priorities, including land available for development and for port industrialisation, can be developed.

The inclusion of Sligo Harbour in a specific section of the Bill should be given serious consideration. The legislation provides for the Minister, if he so deems, to include any harbours he wishes at a later date. Sligo Harbour is in need of development and should be given as much favourable consideration as possible.

Mr. Dardis

I commend the Minister for this legislation and I hope it will have the desired effect. I am tempted to make special pleading for a harbour in County Kildare, but since I come from an inland county I will not be making a special case. However, I have some observations on the Bill. I am delighted to support Senator Reynolds' call for special status for Sligo port. The Bill should set out to make the bodies in question more commercial and it attempts to do that. I would have gone even father than the Minister but that is a debate for another day.

When one looks at the number of ports we have, especially down the east coast, starting at Greenore and continuing to Cobh, it is unquestionable that, for an island of our size and population, we are liberally burdened with ports, to put it at its mildest. Perhaps the way to deal with this is through legislation of this nature. If we allow the ports to compete on an equal basis, the competition in itself will lead to them having an edge and to a certain sorting out, which would be to the benefit of trade and of consumption in general.

There is always a tendency to adopt an over-centralised approach on behalf of the State on all these matters. I am prepared to accept that there are responsibilities of safety and related matters that are very much the concerns of the Minister and of the State. It is appropriate for the State to set such parameters, and for the bodies that have been established to have to work within them as it is essential that shipping should be able to move safely through coastal waters and that the risk of accidents be minimised, together with the risk of environmental damage as a result of accident. All these matters should be attended to by way of legislation, indeed they are so attended, which is appropriate.

However, it comes to a point where it is necessary for the State to be at arm's length, which comes back to the debate we had last week about the universities and the degree to which the State should be involved. There is a common principle at work here. I support the Bill in general.

The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland should have statutory representation on the harbour boards as of right. I can think of no locally established body that is more representative of the business and commercial life of the area than the chambers of commerce. They have the expertise and the interest and they should be represented. The Minister will tell me that it is open to put somebody from the chambers of commerce onto a harbour board. However, this provision should be stronger. There are many precedents which would support this argument.

There is nothing novel about a recommendation such as this; it runs through our legislation. For example, the legislation establishing An Bord Bia gave farming organisations rights of nomination to the bodies involved. The unions are represented and local authority representatives are included. I have no objection to this; I believe they should be included. I strongly suggest that the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland be afforded the same kind of rights because they know what is required in the locality and they have its commercial interests at heart. They are also non-political. It is not appropriate that we should parachute people onto the boards.

With regard to the harbour masters and their rights to attend meetings, it is open to the harbour authority to request that the harbour master attend meetings. However, this provision needs to be stronger because I can envisage circumstances where there would be a conflict of interest between the harbour master and the authority. It is important, therefore, that harbour masters, on the basis of rights under natural law, should have the right to attend and be heard, although they should not necessarily have the right to vote. Again, there are many precedents for this.

There are several State companies which would not have got into difficulty if they had a system such as this in place. It is very important that the chief executive of any company attend board meetings and be able to brief the board adequately about what is going on. The best place to do this is at the board meeting. I would, therefore, strongly recommend this to the Minister. The Minister said that, as a matter of course, harbour masters would attend board meetings; however, they should attend as a matter of right, rather than as a matter of course.

With regard to the knotty question of Foynes and Limerick, the Minister will be relieved that I will not go back over all the arguments which have been so well articulated in the debate as to the merits of Foynes and of Limerick and of the contest between the two. I met the group from Foynes and was impressed by what the members had to say. I am not somebody with any deep knowledge of marine matters or of ports, but on the basis of what I heard from them, what they had to say was very reasonable.

This legislation has probably brought out more lobby groups than any legislation I can think of. I have no objection to as many lobby groups as wish coming through the gates of Leinster House and telling us what they believe should be included in or excluded from legislation. This is part of our democracy, and to those who believe that lobbyists should not be part of our system, I say that is anti-democratic. They should be listened to. They have a case to make. With regard to Foynes, the case was well made.

However, it is a matter for the Minister to adjudicate on. If we are unhappy with the adjudication, we will try to amend the Bill on Committee Stage. The Minister can then either accept or decline to accept any amendments. I recommend that the Minister accept amendments in the case of Foynes if they are put down on Committee Stage.

There appears to be some confusion regarding the mediator and what he decided. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify this matter. Am I to understand that what the mediator decided, and what appears to be acceptable to Foynes, is not necessarily what is going to happen in the legislation, and that it will it be either open to the Minister or his officials to set aside the outcome of that mediation and to ignore it?

My knowledge of Foynes comes from the users of the port, especially those in the agri-business sector who import bulk commodities through the port of Foynes. Everything I have heard from them over the past several years would suggest that the port is efficient, well run and that they are very happy to do business there. In view of this, their needs and views have to be taken into account.

The port of New Ross is closer to home, and, again, I stress that I am from an inland constituency. I met the people from New Ross and listened to what they had to say. It is extraordinary that, when there are two different passages involved and we are dealing with the head waters of two different rivers, one port authority, New Ross, has to pay light dues and take on a pilot from another port authority. In the context where we hope that competition will operate, this appears to give an undue advantage to Waterford port. It is similar to a high street publican having the first cut of the barrel of porter before it goes to the second trader down the town.

If this kind of system operated in commercial life outside of the ports, for example, to high street trading or commercial companies, I imagine the Competition Authority would have something to say about it and that the Minister for Enterprise and Employment would not be very happy. It is in this context that the New Ross claim is reasonable. If it is to compete on an equal footing with Waterford, then the question of light dues and pilotage needs to be addressed. I do not have to go into the detail of the case as the Minister is familiar with it and with the requests that have been made by the New Ross Harbour authorities.

I understand that £45,000 per annum is collected in light dues. Those maintaining or installing the lights are entitled to charge, but the question arises whether it should be Waterford or somebody else that installs or maintains the lights. In this regard, New Ross should control the waters within its own jurisdiction.

My final point has to do with ship agents and bonding. The ship agents have pointed out that they are now being requested to lodge a bond with the harbour company to cover payment of harbour charges. They claim — and the Minister might address this in his concluding remarks — that such a procedure could be in contravention of the normal rules of agency and contract. Those rules do not allow an agent to be held responsible for his principal's liability in the same way as an auctioneer cannot be held responsible for the fact that somebody does not pay up when they buy property. That aspect needs to be clarified and the concerns of the ship agents should be allayed.

These matters have been dealt with in detail and the Minister is aware of that detail. I hope that between now and Committee Stage the concerns raised on Second Stage by many Members will be attended to and addressed to our satisfaction.

Mr. Magner

Senator Dardis spoke about New Ross. All of us have received representations regarding New Ross and I give its representatives ten out of ten for trying to ensure that their point of view is heard in the House. It appears to be a basic injustice, which is based on geography, that because one must pass through the Waterford lights to access the estuary to New Ross, the Waterford Port Authority has the sole right to levy charges in an arbitrary fashion without discussion or agreement with the New Ross Harbour Authority. Whenever such a conflict arises there should be a mechanism in place to ensure that equity and fair play take precedence and that there is a process of consultation and agreement where one pilotage area crosses another.

Senator Dardis also referred to the compulsory taking of pilotage at a certain area, which is Cheekpoint in the case of New Ross. Sometimes that practice is necessary and sometimes it is not. In my view, and having spent some years at sea, one either needs a pilot or one does not and the skipper either has the competence or he does not. Where the competence exists——

Mr. Dardis

I hope the Senator is not still at sea.

Mr. Magner

Not as much as the Progressive Democrats but we are probably all at sea.

Mr. Dardis

We are all adrift together.

Mr. Magner

But not as much adrift as others.

With regard to New Ross, there should be a system whereby the Waterford and New Ross authorities could agree on charges. It would be extremely unfair if Waterford, for commercial reasons, decided that it could charge light dues which made New Ross virtually uneconomic as a port. That is a possibility and it has to be addressed.

With regard to ships' agents and the liability of agents to answer for the owners of vessels, I do not believe that the financial reward for acting as an agent for a major shipping company is commensurate with the responsibility placed on the agent. There must be another way to bring defaulting agents or ship owners to book. The Minister will be aware that it is not an unknown procedure to attach a writ to the mast of a ship if it is in debt. There are other ways, rather than trying to penalise people who are not wealthy in their own right, of ensuring the payment of dues to the State.

When this State secured its independence from Britain, the Chief Secretary's Office in Dublin Castle sent copious amounts of documents to Leinster House. Some of them were ancient charters granted by English sovereigns to Irish ports and they still lie in museums or in the dungeons of this and other houses. As heritage is now such a significant part of our tourism product, these charters should be given to the ports of Waterford, Cork, Dublin and so forth and not be held in the dungeons of Government Buildings. They should be given back to the port authorities and communities which were originally granted the charters. This could be an important part of the heritage package of such communities. I ask the Minister to examine that possibility. I have checked this before and the charters are there. They are gathering dust in various places, including in the bowels of this House where there are many important documents that were transferred from Dublin Castle during that period.

The central point, however, is that where, for geographical reasons, there are two harbour authorities which cross each other's territory, there should be an equitable and fair system whereby the authorities sit down together and agree whatever dues must be paid without one side, in this case Waterford, arbitrarily setting the fees for vessels bound for New Ross.

Mr. Lanigan

Senator Magner spoke about the archives and the need to set up a proper archive system throughout the country. We are trying to install a regional archive in Kilkenny Castle; perhaps Senator Magner would ask the Minister, Deputy Higgins, to support our case for using Kilkenny Castle——

Mr. Magner

I excluded Kilkenny.

Mr. Lanigan

——as a south eastern archive centre. People might ask why somebody from Kilkenny is standing up to speak on a harbours Bill. I am between a rock and a hard place on this issue.

Mr. Magner

The Swiss navy.

Mr. Lanigan

Kilkenny County Council has representatives on both New Ross and Waterford Harbour Commissioners and Waterford Harbour happens to be in County Kilkenny so we have major problems when conflict arises between the two harbour authorities.

We must compliment everybody who approached us about this Harbours Bill. We have never seen such lobbying, particularly by Foynes Harbour Commissioners, New Ross Harbour Commissioners, New Ross Chamber of Commerce, Waterford Harbour Commissioners, Waterford Chamber of Commerce, the Irish Ships' Agents Association and the Irish Pilots Association. Somebody said earlier that it was democracy at work and I agree. If other people who complain about legislation went about their business in the same manner as interested groups in the Harbours Bill have done, there might not be so many problems in the aftermath of legislation being passed.

The Harbours Bill is welcome. It updates a large amount of legislation that has become outdated and brings certain harbours into the commercial reality of life today, whether it is shipping or any other type of business. A number of the port authorities around the country were not doing their business in a commercial way and because of this they were less successful than in other areas. We have to ensure that the majority and not the minority of ports become commercially minded and that every port should be brought into the commercial sphere. Harbours and ships are an essential part of the commercial life of this country because of our peripherality and the fact that we are now, as has been said ad nauseam, the only country not linked by land to Europe. As a result we must ensure that our ports are commercial, profitable, can turn around ships in the fastest time possible and get our goods to world markets as efficiently as possible.

On Second Stage the Minister stated:

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

Accordingly, the Minister for the Marine will appoint three persons, nominated in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority, to be each a director of a company. Regulations prescribing the manner in which such persons are to be nominated will be made by the Minister for the Marine.

Will the Minister appoint these persons, will he tell local authorities who to appoint or will county councils, as heretofore, nominate the members of these boards? I would not like to see such appointments removed from the remit of local authorities. This remit has been downgraded over the years and I hope this Bill will not result in a further downgrading of it.

Why are TDs, Senators and MEPs precluded from membership of the boards of these authorities? I see no reason why this should be the case. If a TD, Senator or MEP has qualifications which would help in the running of an authority, he or she should have the same opportunity as anybody else to be appointed to such boards. Ministers in this and previous Governments have decided that membership of the Seanad, the Dáil or the European Parliament should exclude people from membership of certain State bodies.

There has been a great deal of lobbying on behalf of Foynes. From what we have heard from the Minister and others, the problems associated with Foynes will be eliminated before this Bill is passed. The definition of the extension of the limits of Foynes has not been stated. Will it be extended by ten or 20 cables? I am not sure what a cable is. I presume it is a measurement of distance associated with ships. As a seafaring man, Senator Magner would know a great deal more than I do about this area. If Foynes has been given the extension it needs, the limits of the extension should be defined.

Limerick Harbour Board realises that the Foynes lobby was extremely strong and did an excellent job in doing what it wanted to do for Foynes. Over the years Foynes harbour has come from the doldrums. It used to be a seaport for aeroplanes but experienced bad times. Over the past few years it has become a successful port. Parts of the Shannon Estuary are suitable for large ships. Local authority members on the Foynes Harbour Board did a fantastic job in conjunction with the chief executive of the board and other people from the area and I congratulate them.

The issues of pilotage and light dues have led to conflict between Waterford and New Ross. A review has been set up to deal with pilotage. This issue is of the utmost importance because it affects the safety not only of ships but of people who use rivers and estuaries. We have all received a letter from New Ross Chamber of Commerce in which its secretary stated:

Ships coming to New Ross must pass through part of Waterford Harbour and at present these vessels must pay light dues and pilotage charges to Waterford. The imposition of these additional charges places New Ross at a severe competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis Waterford.

The Harbours Bill, 1995, which will reach the Senate during the week commencing 20th November, must address these issues and create a situation where the two ports can compete on an equal basis.

The Port of New Ross is the major factor in the economic life of the town and surrounding areas. Any loss of trade through the port will therefore have a significant negative impact on the area which already experiences higher than average unemployment.

The issue of one port being in a position to levy charges on ships bound for another port will be discussed during the debate in the Senate. We would ask you to support the introduction of a legislative framework which is fair and equitable to all ports.

As a balance against this we received a letter from Waterford Chamber of Commerce, which states:

The jurisdiction of Waterford Harbour Commissioners and Waterford Pilotage Authority extends from the City of Waterford to the mouth of the estuary at Dunmore East.

The powers and duties of the Commissioners are enshrined in the Harbours Act, 1946 and replicated in the Harbours Bill, 1995, which states that the principal objects of the new port company will be to take all proper measures for the management, control and development of the harbour and the approach channels thereto and provide reasonable facilities and services for all vessels. Furthermore, in the interests of safety and the environment, the Commissioners are in the process of installing and maintaining additional buoys and lights.

With regard to the access channel it should be noted that the principal navigation buoys and leading lights are located in the Waterford estuary between Dunmore East and Cheekpoint. All vessels bound to/from New Ross utilise these facilities. Each New Ross vessel is levied with a small local lights charge. A recent financial appraisal submitted to the Department of the Marine established that the contribution made by New Ross shipping is not only fair and equitable but also, from the New Ross Commissioners point of view, extremely good value for money. Hence it is incorrect to suggest, as New Ross have done, that these charges place them at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis Waterford.

In fact it should also be noted that these charges which were established in 1984 have remained unaltered since then, mainly as a consequence of the developing trade in the Port of Waterford.

Pilotage is also compulsory for all shipping whether bound for Waterford or New Ross. Compulsory pilotage legislation was enacted and confirmed under the Pilotage Order Confirmation Act, 1927. This requirement is not only for the protection of shipping but for the protection of ports and of commercial ports in particular...

The Commissioners have provided and will continue to provide buoys, lights, navigational channel and pilotage service at a cost efficient price which is consistent with a commercial and marketable port, which at the same time ensures the safety of all shipping in the estuary.

Two opposite points of view have been expressed by Waterford and New Ross chambers of commerce. I come from an area which straddles both ports. We want to ensure that New Ross port can continue to be successful and to develop as it has for some years. The number of ship movements to New Ross makes it a busy port. On average, 1,100 ship movements are piloted to and from the harbour each year and consequently pass through the Waterford pilotage district. This is in addition to approximately 1,600 movements per annum to and from Waterford Harbour. Because of the roll on-roll off status of Bellvue port in County Kilkenny and the fact that Louisiana Pacific and various other commercial projects will come on stream in that area over the next few years, there will be a big increase in the 1,600 movements mentioned in the Minister's speech.

I am not sure how the Minister should ensure equity between Waterford and New Ross in terms of the lights and buoys in the harbour. The people of New Ross feel they are at a disadvantage because they must pay a levy which amounted to £45,000 last year. This does not give commercial equity in terms of the costs of the lights and what is being paid for them. The safety of the ships going to and from Waterford or New Ross ports should be of major importance. Although pilotage is compulsory, it is not necessarily so in all cases because if the weather is bad, the pilots cannot get on board the ships, which must sail without them. A ship went aground recently because the pilot thought he knew Bellvue port, but he hit a boom which he did not realise was there. This boom was used to make the water deeper in certain places.

I am not sure if Kilkenny County Council has a major interest in Waterford port or in the port of New Ross, but perhaps the county manager could act as honest broker between the two in the interests of equity. Perhaps the review group which is considering the pilotage scheme could also examine the areas of conflict which must be resolved. If charges are levied on the port of New Ross which are not equitable, something should be done because we need two commercially viable ports in that area. A lot of goods are transported through these ports from the south-east and large companies are once again using Waterford Harbour. Waterford and New Ross would be used a lot more than they are at present if there was proper access to them. There is only one bridge across the River Suir in Waterford and this causes major problems. Arcon Mines in County Kilkenny will start production next year and if New Ross is used as the port of exit for these materials there will be a huge build up of traffic into that port on roads which are not capable of carrying traffic at present.

I ask the Minister to take into account the major conflict between the two port authorities over the charges levied. Commercial advantage should not be given to one port over the other. A charge should be levied on the cost of maintaining the buoys and the lights and it should be equally distributed between the ships using one harbour or the other. The number of ships, rather than the tonnage, should be used to determine the cost.

I am not sure how to deal with this, but perhaps the Minister could deal with it in the same way as the review group is examining pilotage. That group will consist of one nominee from Waterford Harbour Commissioners, one nominee from New Ross Harbour Commissioners, one official from the Department of the Marine and one independent member, with the necessary technical expertise, to be nominated by the Department of the Marine and agreed by both parties. Waterford port would like to leave the situation as it is. If this gives Kilkenny a commercial advantage, so be it, but it is not equitable. The problem between the two harbour authorities is of concern to everyone who has spoken. An equitable resolution must be found.

I welcome the Bill. Our harbours must be of the highest quality and the turnaround in them must be as fast as possible for our commercial exports. Up to now the harbour masters were not members of the harbour authorities. I am not sure if that applies everywhere, but I do not understand why the person who runs the harbour on a daily basis should not be a member of the authority. It is not correct that they should hear decisions secondhand.

I am not sure about the legal technicalities of the Irish Ship Agents' Association. Section 13(7) is as objectionable as that in the previous Bill in that the procedure of compelling the agent to pay his principal's liabilities by direct cash or by extraction from his bond contravenes the law of agency. If it does this, there is no point in putting it into this Bill because there will be court challenges if what the Irish Ship Agents' Association says is correct. There have been enough challenges to Bills which have passed this House over the years.

The relationship between Waterford port and the port of New Ross is a major problem in this Bill. Smaller harbours are also covered in the Bill. During the summer months boats take off from small piers around the country and go to islands off Kerry, the west coast or the north-west coast. Many of these are breaking the law as regards safety measures. I would not allow anybody who had any connection with me to get on some of these boats going out from small harbours to the islands off the south west or west coasts.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I sincerely hope that when this legislation goes through, our shippers and those who run the ports will be better able to do their business in the manner necessary from the point of view of our exports.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I am glad to be in a position to speak on this Bill. I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He is doing a good job and has had an interest in his area of responsibility for a considerable period of time, including when he was in Opposition. That experience stands to him as a Minister of State and it is evident in the manner in which he deals with his portfolio.

The Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas for a long time. It is a major cornerstone to the successful development of our economy in future. As an island nation, and the only EU state without a land link to the Continent, we have difficulty competing in the international market place. That is why we must have good port facilities in place to compete effectively and economically with ports in Europe and elsewhere.

The Bill's focus is correct in that it establishes port authorities and companies that will be commercially oriented and will operate on a commercial scale. That is hugely important for industry, tourism, agriculture and other important areas of our economy. We must take a positive and pragmatic approach towards planning for the future if we are to develop jobs in port areas as well as increasing employment generally to reduce numbers on the dole.

Traditionally such a measure came before the House in the form of the Shannon Estuary Bill. On both occasions that Bill came before the House the Government fell. I presume the current Minister and Minister of State decided it was better to have a national dimension to the Bill rather than a specific Shannon Estuary dimension. The Minister is to be congratulated on dealing with all the main port areas in addition to laying the basis for the formation of commercial structures and port companies.

In 1990 the then Minister for the Marine, Deputy Wilson, established a review group to examine the ports. At that time the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, was one of the Opposition spokespersons on the Marine and I was the Fine Gael spokesperson. We welcomed that development at the time. I now welcome the fact that the Minister is acting on the review group's recommendations to put in place the means necessary to use our ports to best advantage. In so doing the Minister has looked closely at the various recommendations and the membership of the board. Initially, I understand that seven board members were considered for each commercial port company, but I am delighted the Minister has now decided on a happy medium figure of 12, which is representative of all the interests concerned.

The Minister states that no port user shall be represented on or be a member of the board. I would ask the Minister to examine the matter, although I can understand the conflict of interest if any port user was a member of the board. I refer, however, to the modern Moneypoint facility which the ESB put in place and which deals with a lot of traffic serving the generating station. While Limerick Harbour Authority has had jurisdiction over that area, a new Shannon port company will now have jurisdiction there. A company like the ESB which has put such a facility in place, but which is still paying dues to a new port company, deserves some form of recognition or representation on the board. The Minister's Department should consider that scenario.

In dealing with such a Bill most of us end by being somewhat parochial. In years gone by we have put on record the Shannon Estuary situation as various Bills were discussed. The primary objective of any such legislation should be to enhance development and create a facility conducive to generating employment. I hope this Bill will do just that in all the areas concerned and particularly on the Shannon Estuary.

The estuary is bordered on one side by Kerry and on the other side by county Clare. As a representative from Clare, I have to say that over the years we felt badly treated by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners. We resented the manner in which the area down to Loop Head was treated by the commissioners. These factors must be taken into consideration. There is an attitude that we should be thankful because we have one representative from Clare County Council on the current Limerick Harbour Commissioners. In future we will have to forget the closed shops and instead seek openness, accountability and transparency at all levels.

Mr. Roche

There it is again.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I hope that the Minister of State and the Minister, when they are establishing these companies and appointing board personnel, will strictly ensure openness, transparency and accountability. As far as port companies or harbour authorities are concerned, in many instances one is talking about substantial amounts of money. I compliment Foynes on their submission, which made it clear that on a turnover of £2.1 million there was a profit of £800,000. That cannot be said of many other harbour authorities, including the Limerick Harbour Commissioners.

We have a natural facility which is owned by the people and should be used for their benefit. It should not be used exclusively for the benefit of any one sector or group. While I welcome the Bill, it is important that in appointing the board's membership the Minister should appoint people who are open-minded, unbiased and prepared to be accountable and transparent in their deliberations. Without openness the best interests of the region will not be served. I have confidence that the Minister will take this into account when the legislation is passed.

Debate adjourned.