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.