Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Jun 2000

Vol. 163 No. 16

Harbours (Amendment) Bill, 2000: Second Stage.

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

Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey)

I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to introduce this legislation in the Seanad. I do not think I will bring a more important piece of legislation before the Oireachtas than this. It is 25 years since the proposal contained in this Bill was first made. Two or three general elections intervened while the legislation was being debated in the Dáil and Seanad. I hope this is not an omen of a further general election during the passage of this Bill. I hope it will pass both Houses before the summer recess. Its passage will be very significant for the economic development of the mid-west region and of the west and south-west.

Maritime access transport has a crucial role in Irish commercial life, given both the openness of the Irish economy and Ireland's position as the only EU member state without a land bridge to its main markets. Sea transport and port services must therefore be efficient, adequate, responsive and compeititve. Ports need to be competitive and cost efficient by providing reliable and effective user services. They need to address capacity issues and infrastructural needs to service the economy and trade while being fully attuned to safety and conservation matters. They need to be fully accountable to their customers and stakeholders and operate in a spirit of openness and partnership.

In the context of consultations with the chairpersons of Shannon Estuary Ports Company and Foynes Port Company, my predecessor requested an independent and objective review of the Shannon estuary ports. The review focused on whether changes in current operations and management structures might result in significant benefits to port users. You will be aware that the issue of different port structures in the estuary has been discussed and considered on a number of occasions. Various models have been considered with a view to creating a new more dynamic port entity which would be a stronger force in attracting shipping and other business to the estuary by providing a better quality and more efficient service to port users and act as a focus for onshore port related development in the estuary.

I published the KPMG consulting report on 26 March 2000 and I announced that I supported fully and in principle the main findings of the report. The consultants came to the conclusion that the establishment of a new and single port company is the only arrangement that makes commercial and operatonal sense. The company, to be called the Shannon and Foynes Port Company, will be responsible for all of the port related activity in the estuary.

Port companies operate to service the needs of their customers. When I met the customers of both port companies, they were unanimous in endorsing the KPMG conlusion that a single port company was the best operational and management structure for the Shannon estuary.

This is a major development initiative for the Shannon estuary with a range of resultant benefits identified. These include the provision of a single, coherent voice to the marketing of the estuary ports by a more focused management, greater efficiencies and economies of scale allowing a more structured approach to infrastructure development as well as a more rational approach to the best use of terminals and assets. It is anticipated that port charges will be reduced and that the new single port company will be better positioned to address the current and potential business opportunities that the estuary offers for the mid-west region and the State.

The Harbours (Amendment) Bill amends section 43 of the Harbours Act, 1996, to provide that if the Minister is of the opinion that the functions of a company or companies could be performed in a more cost effective and efficient manner by another company or companies, he may establish a new company resulting in the amalgamation of existing companies. The Bill enables the Minister to amalgamate the functions of Foynes Port Company and Shannon Estuary Ports Company. Previously an amalgamation could only be done with the consent of the port companies. It also provides powers to the Minister to establish an implementation board and advisory board or boards to facilitate the transfer. The Bill allows the Minister for Finance to make available to a company moneys to finance capital works and to inject equity for other purposes and to raise the aggregate amount of moneys that can be made available to companies. An amendment is also included to address a deficiency in the original Act in respect of the name and limited liability status of the port companies. Other amendments to the Act ensure continuity on foot of the transition from one company to another.

The implementation structures are designed to be simple, effective and non-divisive. The implementation process should be completed within a 12 to 18 month timeframe. If it is possible to do it quicker than that, we are anxious to do so. The existing boards will, under the proposed legislation, remain in place on an advisory basis until March 2002, when the five year term of office of most of the directors will have ceased and the current director's fees will continue until that date. As the House is aware, I recently announced the establishment of a five member implementation board, on an informal basis initially pending enactment of this legislation, under the able chairmanship of Mr. Proinsias Kitt of Kitt, Noone Chartered Accountants, to initiate the process of overseeing the transition to a new single port company. The other members of the board are Mr. Kieran McSweeney, chairperson of Foynes Port Company, Mr. Michael Leyden, chairperson of Shannon Estuary Ports Company, Ms Susan Bugler, director of Shannon Estuary Ports Com pany and Mr. Kevin Sheehan, director of Foynes Port Company. I am very grateful to the members for agreeing to serve on this vitally important board. There will be a close liaison between the implementation board and both port company boards and their successor advisory boards in order to ensure the smoothest possible transition to a new single port company structure.

The advisory boards, comprising the directors of the Foynes Port Company and Shannon Estuary Ports Company directors, will have a real and important role to fulfil in assisting the implementation board of the new company to pursue the difficult decisions vital to the future success of the company and the development of business in the estuary's port facilities. There will be a serious obligation on the advisory boards to assist in every way in the achievement of the main and subsidiary objectives for which the company is established and to tender any advice sought by the board on matters relating to measures for the management, control, operation and development of the estuary port facilities, the provision of facilities, services, accommodation and lands in its jurisdiction for ships and goods, the promotion of investment in its facilities, the engagement in business activity considered advantageous to the development of the estuary and the utilisation and management of available resources.

I recognise that this role may be onerous and time consuming. For these reasons there is provision in the Bill for the continued remuneration of the members of the advisory boards and a mechanism for the filling of vacancies, should they arise.

I am aware from discussions both with the staff and management of the two port companies and from discussion with members of this House and the Dáil that there is a genuine sense of grievance as to certain comments made by the consultants who undertook the Shannon Port industry review about a number of issues. I am speaking in particular about the comments on the financial position of both ports, the cash flow difficulty at Foynes and the pensions deficit at Shannon. I recognise fully that there are sensitivities here. Perhaps the dedication, service and commitment shown over the years by the staff members of both companies and their predecessor harbour authorities was not given sufficient credit.

Both port companies were set up in March 1997 without any financial support from the State. The balance sheet positions were inherited by the companies and both had to operate within that environment from vesting day onwards. Both companies experienced a lack of supportive investment by the State over the years and still managed to operate their business and service their customers in a hugely competitive environment. It is now time, however, to put the past behind us and move on to a new future for the estuary ports from a position of strength. In respect of Foynes in particular, the report did not acknowledge the fact that Foynes put in a very significant investment and now has a very fine facility. As a result of that investment and the courage shown by the members of the board, they were left in some financial difficulty. Had they not had that courage and invested as they did, we would have a much bigger bill to pay now for development which has been done over the years. That was not fairly reflected in the report.

A capital injection is needed at Foynes Port so that the company can install new handling equipment. They cannot afford to buy it themselves because of their acute cash flow problems, on the basis of what I have said, because they invested some £12. 5 million in the new west jetty extension. They now have the capacity to load and discharge more and larger ships but without the handling equipment,which they have not been able to finance, they are constrained in their current business and cannot trade out of their difficulties and exploit some new business prospects.

Although investment in ports has greatly improved, thanks to EU structural funding, the capacity and quality of port facilities and the level of growth in Ireland's international trade and in port activity mean that continued investment is required which will be funded in the future through the port's own resources, available EU co-funded investment, shareholder's equity, public private partnerships or a combination of these funding mechanisms.

Amongst the tasks of the implementation board overseeing the unification process, which I appointed on an informal basis pending enactment of the new legislation and establishment of the new port company, will be the need to establish the level of equity required to ensure that the new company can trade solvently. KPMG Consulting assesses this to be in the order of £5 to £8 million. The implementation board will be investigating the full extent of the planned capital works at both ports, the restructuring of loans, private sector involvement, port re-organisation and possible disposal of assets surplus to essential core business so that I can have a fully developed and costed assessment of the financial requirements necessary to enable the two companies to unify into one whole and start with a sound balance sheet.

An urgent priority already identified is to address the critical deficiencies in craneage and handling facilities at Foynes, costing up to £3 million. The eventual cost will depend on completion of the procurement process which has just been embarked upon by the Foynes Port Company. Consultation with the Minister for Finance are ongoing on the issue and these discussions will be finalised very shortly. The new single port company will be headquartered at Foynes. The KPMG report recommended that the location of the headquarters of the new single port company should be a matter for the new executive but that operational management should be located at Foynes while Limerick should have the administrative and commercial responsibilities.

Following publication of the report, I, as share holder, decided that certainty was required as to where the headquarters and executive location for the new port company should be. I came to the conclusion that in the combined business of the two companies, the facilities over which the most business influence can be exerted by the new port company are at Foynes. Also, the thrust of Government policy is away from centralisation in the major towns and cities. I explained this fully to the boards and managements of the two port companies when I visited them recently.

While the operational headquarters will be located at Foynes, the new single port company will need to have a presence at other port locations and facilities within the estuary. This matter will fall to be determined by the implementation board following full and detailed consultations with the two advisory boards.

At a very early stage of the review process, my Department confirmed the position in writing to both port companies that all the employment protections as to salary scales and conditions of service guaranteed by the Harbours Act, 1996, for the members of staff of the predecessor harbour authorities would not be affected by any potential changes to management or operational structures and I reiterate that this remains the case. A key remit of the interim implementation board is to deal with staffing concerns or issues. I am on record as saying that there will be no forced redundancies. Where the necessity for staff economies or rationalisation become apparent to the implementation board, a scheme of voluntary redundancy will be put in place.

There are three road projects relevant to the future of the two ports. They are the upgrading of the N69, the construction of the Foynes Harbour access road and the proposed fourth Shannon River crossing. The first two are especially relevant for the development of the port of Foynes while the last concerns the future of the Limerick docks.

The improvement of the N69 is scheduled under the national development plan. Significant remedial works are, I understand, underway currently on the N69. I have had discussions with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, about the continuation and the provision of further priority to the development of this road.

An urgent priority already identified is to advance the construction of the port access road at Foynes. I understand that the original scheme, for which there is planning permission, was costed at some £1.6 million. Extra works have arisen comprising realignment of the N69 and a level crossing at a cost of some £1 million. The National Roads Authority will provide £300,000 of this, in addition to the grant aid already committed, leaving a requirement for an additional allocation to Limerick County Council of some £700,000. I have initiated discussions with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government on providing the necessary funding, when required, to Limerick County Council, for the purpose of constructing the Foynes Port access road. I fully appreciate the importance of completing the access road, having visited the port and spoken to the local community council.

The proposed Limerick southern ring road will cross the Shannon at a place yet to be decided. The type of crossing, which could be a high or medium level bridge, an open span bridge or tunnel, could seriously impact on the types and volumes of traffic that will use Limerick Port. A low level bridge, for instance, would stop many pleasure vessels with high masts entering the port. To allow all vessels to access the port, a 30 metre clearance will be required.

There is a decision to be made in regard to the type and form of a new Shannon crossing. This must not restrict the development and long-term viability of the Ted Russell docks, not only from a commercial perspective but also as a facility for water-based tourism. The potential of Limerick docks must be recognised, given that its location takes significant bulk traffic off the road. Up to now the facility was hampered by lack of warehousing but this is being addressed in developments planned by Shannon Estuary Ports Company.

I have asked Shannon Development Company in conjunction with Shannon Estuary Ports Company to explore the possibility of establishing a terminal adjacent to Shannon Development Company's land bank near Ballylongford in north Kerry. The lands at Ballylongford and Shannon Estuary have been the subject of a number of initiatives over the past 20 to 30 years, none of which has resulted in a specific industrial project at that location.

More recently, there have been proposals to use this land bank as a location for a container transhipment facility. This proposal has been around for some time and I am determined that it should be urgently and authoritatively explored. While success is dependent on investment from the private sector, the project warrants further exploration. On foot of this, my Department and the Department of the Taoiseach, working with Shannon Development and the representatives of the two ports, and relevant stakeholders, have initiated an intensive evaluation of the viability of such a project. The aim is to develop the concept in outline form and to explore this informally with potential operators. This evaluation will take some months to complete.

As a shareholder it is my responsibility to ensure that the State's port industry assets are deployed to best effect and that the business is competitive, responsive to customers' needs and operates on a sound financial footing. Above all I want the estuary ports industry to be a focal point for development of the estuary as a whole and deliver to the best extent possible on its potential. While the Shannon Estuary has long been identified as a deepwater access asset with major unexploited maritime and related potential, the level of progress has fallen far short of expectations.

There is no doubt that the marketing focus needs to be strengthened and the full potential of the estuary ports industry which has a capacity to handle in excess of 22 million tonnes must be realised. I am confident that the new structure with a single voice, reduced costs and strengthened management and marketing capabilities will enable the potential of the estuary to be maximised for the benefit of all.

It is my intention that implementation of the new arrangements will be accompanied by in-depth assessment of new port business opportunities and by a revitalisation of the wider estuary development work of Shannon Estuary Development Ltd. I envisage the new arrangements as a catalyst for the integrated development of the estuary for a mix of activities, including industry, shipping, tourism, aquaculture, recreation and for a harmonised approach to coastal zone management and environmental issues. This unification will provide a focused and dynamic development structure, not just for the ports industry in the Shannon Estuary but also for the Shannon and mid-west region as a whole.

Foynes and Limerick have the potential to become the premier ports in Ireland. We are all agreed that too many of our imports and exports pass through ports on the east coast, particularly Dublin Port, where there is a huge build up of traffic. I am anxious that this development should give Foynes in particular, because it is a deep water port, the ability to attract traffic from Dublin. I have said this to Dublin Port officials and, therefore, I am not saying anything behind their backs. The Shannon Estuary ports will become premier ports, not just in Ireland but in Europe. There is no doubt that the estuary is our most important natural resource. It is seriously underdeveloped and has not fulfilled its potential and contributed to the economic life of the west, mid-west and south west. I am satisfied it can become the cornerstone of development. The development of the ports will bring about a significant increase in industrial activity in the estuary hinterland. I look forward very much to the implementation of the legislation.

I welcome the members of the Foynes board and staff who are present. I thank them for their co-operation, understanding and constructive contribution to the debate since I took office. I reiterate what I have stated both in Limerick and Foynes. This legislation is not an attempt to coerce anybody into anything. We are undertaking this initiative in a spirit of partnership on the basis of trying to agree the way forward with the people involved. That is my intention as we go through this process. During the debate in the Dáil I hope to spell out in more detail the financial arrangements which I will hopefully reach with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, and the composition of the new port company which is to be established.

The Department wants the new port company to be up and running as quickly as possible. We want the implementation board to be in place only for as long as it needs to undertake the specific job it has been given. In the meantime the most crucial role is that of the two existing boards which will act in an advisory role. It is essential that they adopt a hands on approach to this development and that they are consulted, are the main advisers in terms of the implementation board and are the catalyst for action as we go forward. I intend that the two boards will be asked for a great deal of advice in the context of the implementation board's work. I have been assured by the new chairman that he will consult and be advised by the two boards on an ongoing basis.

I appointed a Galway man as chairman because it is absolutely vital that he has an impartial view and listens to all sides in the debates so that at the end of the day the Shannon Estuary and the counties of Kerry, Limerick and Clare will be the beneficiaries of this initiative. I commend this legislation to the House and hope we have a constructive debate. I am quite anxious to take on board the views of Members of both Houses as the legislation is processed.

Mr. Caffrey

I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the legislation even though it disappoints me in many respects. The Minister's contribution was a tale of two ports and welding them together in legislation. Seemingly they could not come together by their own volition for the general good of shipping in the mid-west. The danger of a welding process is that if both materials are not compatible there will not be a good result. I have no great appetite for legislation which is drafted for a specific purpose. I began to assume, having read the opening paragraph of the explanatory memorandum, that the Minister would have power to act elsewhere if he felt a harbour board was not performing its function or was under performing. I am interested in small harbours throughout the country. Many of them are on life support in terms of finance and viability. The Bill makes no attempt to address their concerns because it appears to be designed for a specific purpose. The Minister should have used the opportunity to widen his powers when dealing with the rest of the country.

Small ports have been the sheet anchor of industry and commerce in many small towns. The medium to larger towns would never have developed as they have were it not for the ports and harbours and the efforts made by voluntary groups and harbour boards through the years. Many harbour boards now see their functions as obsolete; indeed they do not function at all in many areas. The composition of the boards also leaves much to be desired. They usually comprise two members of the UDC, two members of the county council, two members of the local chamber of commerce and three members appointed by the Minister. Usually most of them have little interest in harbour board or maritime activities. Often defeated candidates in local elec tions become members. They do not have a real function.

I was disappointed the Minister did not use the opportunity when drafting the legislation to examine the position to see what could be done. If many of the small ports and harbours had a dynamic company with shipping, business and commercial interests they might be able to create opportunities, even in this era of big shipping, roll-on, roll-off handling, large container traffic and super tankers. There still appears to be a market for the small coasters of 1,000 or 1,500 tonnes which would have access to many of the small ports. However, because there is no structure to facilitate this development the potential is not being given positive consideration. Many areas are unable to develop in this way because the harbour boards do not have the muscle, the expertise or the finance to look any further than five miles down the channel.

There are many areas in tourism and the marine which could also be developed by the harbour boards if they had some degree of autonomy and financial backing. Perhaps they could be handed over to local authorities. I hoped this legislation would give the Minister the power to transform them into companies in the same way as he is proceeding with the ports at Foynes and Shannon in an effort to reinvigorate them for the new century.

This is a difficult and capital intensive business, as can be seen from the necessity for two major ports like Foynes and Shannon to come together to further their development. I am glad the Minister is prepared to inject substantial funding into the development of these two ports. He rightly said that too high a proportion of our exports are moving through ports on the eastern side of the country, clogging up Dublin, Drogheda and so on. In the meantime the west and mid-west are not being developed. Approximately 90% of exports are by sea, which indicates the scale of activity involved in the major harbours and ports.

If we are to solve the problem of congestion on the east coast we must decentralise and give traffic a regional focus by moving it around. In that context I and a group of people in the west have been pursuing the idea of a deep sea port in Killala Bay, which contains some of the deepest water in Europe. While it would be a greenfield operation, such a development would give the opportunity to explore the potential of the bay. Given the off-shore gas at Achill Island, Enterprise Oil will tomorrow give a briefing in three locations in County Mayo to outline its intentions. I urge the Minister to facilitate Enterprise Oil in every respect in bringing this pipeline through County Mayo into County Galway – where he has his constituency – and to ensure that there are sufficient spurs from the pipeline to enable the gas to be utilised by industry in the region. Given his great interest in the west, I have no doubt the Minister will ensure that Enterprise Oil uses this great reserve of natural wealth it has discovered to enhance and pro mote development within counties Mayo, Sligo, Galway and the western region. It has the capacity to do that if the Government handles it correctly. I know Enterprise Oil is in close collaboration with the Government on many aspects of the development and I am sure they will not be found wanting in the provision of this service through counties Mayo and Galway.

Killala Bay was also considered in the context of a possible landfall in County Mayo. This would have implications for the development of a deep sea port in the area. These factors could give a new impetus to development in this region. The natural resources are there to develop such a facility if there is goodwill on the part of the Department. I have no reason to believe there is not an element of goodwill, whatever about the financial wherewithal to support it although that is another day's work. We are seeking a major feasibility study in the Killala Bay region to consider its potential. If the current growth continues, and there is no reason to believe it will not, there will be a major increase in tonnage at all our major ports. In ten years the current level of tonnage through our ports may appear small in comparison. We must think of the next decade.

In that context, I ask the Minister to consider the possibilities along the western seaboard for major investment. Aside from Northern Ireland, Dublin, Drogheda and Foynes to a limited degree, there are no deep sea facilities. One can imagine the cost to industry in terms of time and money of transporting goods and raw materials across the country. It would be a great boon to the manufacturing industry if there were facilities on the west coast which were capable of handling the types of equipment, tonnage and material which are going through our ports at present.

The current legislation is too specific in many respects. I ask the Minister to clarify whether he regards the Bill as the first step towards reorganising the country's ports and harbours. Is he using it as a stepping stone to the type of initiative that is required if small harbours and ports are to be developed and if they are not to lie idle in the future? It is pathetic that assets are being wasted. I am aware of several harbour boards in County Mayo which have substantial property and assets, but they are lying idle. They could be put to some use. Some harbour boards have leased their property for nominal amounts to manufacturing and other interests. However, this is only the thin end of the wedge. The assets are not being put to a productive use.

The Minister should use the Bill to consider those aspects of our ports and harbours. It is designed for a specific purpose but the time and expertise of the Department were used to draw it up and the Minister should undertake a wider examination of the matter. In the meantime, the Fine Gael Party intends to table some amendments to the Bill because it is too restrictive. It was designed for a specific purpose and I do not have any particular interest in seeing Foynes and Shannon develop as a major shipping area. It is necessary from the point of view of the common good, but there are no votes in County Mayo in relation to Shannon and Foynes.

I ask the Minister to consider the wider context and to consider how he can help people in Ballina and Westport. The small harbour boards there are in serious decline. They are on artificial respiration at present, but none of them is going anywhere. There is much merit in considering those aspects and there is much local interest in them. Several groups in our area spring up from time to time with new ideas for development of our harbours. However, there are no structures, vision or statutory impetus to give them a lift. Usually, the people concerned drift away, their ideas go with them and we are back to square one. I ask the Minister to examine this area and to consider if he could devise a method to inject vigour and vitality into small ports and harbours which are dying on their feet.

Regarding the fishing industry along the west coast, the Minister announced funding recently for the development of small harbours. However, this only scratches the surface. The amount of money allocated will not make any major impact on any of the harbours and ports which were designated. Significant capital investment is needed. The fishing industry and small ports and harbours, particularly on the west coast, are much in need of this capital injection. Small fishing operations are becoming extinct and major trawlers are the order of the day, but many families still depend on fishing. Many commercial fishermen operate from the west coast but they have serious problems in terms of berthing their boats. I ask the Minister to favourably consider that aspect.

Many sheltered harbours could be developed as marinas and leisure facilities. They would attract many tourists and much marine business. This aspect should also be considered. I welcome the thrust of the Bill although it is too specific. More general legislation dealing with this area should be introduced.

Mr. J. Cregan

I commend Senator Caffrey for his honesty when he declared that he had little interest in the unification of Foynes and Limerick ports. However, as I come from west Limerick, I have a deep interest in the Bill and the unification of the ports. I welcome the Minister and the Bill. I compliment the Minister because he acted quickly and efficiently in introducing this legislation. His predecessor, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, commissioned a report by KPMG. While the report was still hot, the Minister, Deputy Fahey, ensured that it was launched. He took its findings on board and he travelled to Foynes and Limerick. He consulted widely and he has been accessible to me and my colleagues at all times. I compliment him on the manner in which he has carried out his business with regard to the Bill to date.

As the Minister said, there were a number of occasions on which legislation dealing with the restructuring of port operations reached an advanced stage but, for many reasons, did not come to fruition. Little progress has occurred in the past 25 years. However, the time is right for a decision to be made on the structural and co-operative arrangements which would serve the ports as well as the various stakeholders who are interested in the industrial, commercial and tourism development of the estuary. The report to which I referred was prompted by the argument that the present arrangement of two port authorities, notwithstanding the degree of co-operation that exists between them, is not necessarily in the best interests of the development of the Shannon Estuary and that much could be gained by some form of alternative operational and structural arrangement which would significantly benefit port users and generate increased trade, industrial growth and employment for the benefit of the region.

This is important and necessary legislation and its implementation will bring tremendous benefits to both ports. The Bill will also greatly protect and enhance Foynes Port, the economy of Foynes, the port users, the workforce and west Limerick in general. Foynes Port is the only deep water port on the south west and west coasts and is involved in a wide range of imports and exports. Cargo traffic through the port in 1999 accounted for more than 1.3 million tonnes, while imports accounted for 1.27 million tonnes, including animal feed, coal, fertiliser and oil products. More than 301 vessels operated through the port last year.

Foynes Port Company is a major employer, employing 20 full-time and part-time staff and a casual dock workforce, which increases to more than 100 in busy periods from September to May. Employment can be increased for the benefit of the people of Foynes and the surrounding areas. A number of service companies are involved in various port related activities, such as ship agencies, stevedores and animal feed and cold storage companies. There are also oil and chemical facilities and engineering works there. Major port users include R & H Hall, Bord na Móna, Irish Cement, Galtee Fuels, Albatross Fertilisers, BP Chemicals, Gouldings Fertilisers, Inver Resources Limited and Estuary Fuel Limited. Excluding external hauliers, the number employed in the above activities totals approximately 200.

Foynes Port is the largest deep water facility on the west coast with a capacity to cater for ships of 42,000 tonnes and the potential to increase that to 65,000 or 70,000 tonnes. A development programme costing £12 million has just been completed and it will provide additional berthage, while a £2 million dredging programme is near completion. The port company assets now exceed £20 million. This healthy picture of Foynes Port has evolved despite the fact that little public funding has been available to supplement local investment. This is particularly significant when one considers the level of State investment in ports on the east coast with which Foynes Port must compete.

I and many others in Foynes are concerned with one aspect of the KPMG report. While I broadly welcome its findings, I am disappointed with the reference to the state of Foynes Port's finances. I am delighted the Minister took the opportunity today, as promised, to put it on the record that this should not have been a reflection on the present directors and staff, who are in the Visitors Gallery and whom I welcome, or on those who served in the past whether as directors of Foynes Port Company or as trustees of Foynes harbour board. My late father served on that board for many years, including as chairman, as did many others and all of them gave unselfishly of their time. Their results of their efforts can be seen today.

As the Minister correctly said, if the people in Foynes Port Company and Foynes Harbour Trustees had not been wise enough to invest, without the help of State aid in many cases, we would not have the asset in west Limerick and Foynes of which we are all proud. An injustice was done to the members of the present company and to those who served loyally in the past. I agree with the Minister that such investment could not be put in place today because resources are not available. A huge investment has been made in this area. There will be cash flow problems if money is invested, but the other option is to turn away business. The members of the port company and the Foynes Harbour Trustees made the right decisions and I commend them for that.

Notwithstanding the investment made to date, I am satisfied of the absolute necessity for further public investment on a significant scale if the potential of Foynes Port and the estuary is to be fully realised. The future development plan for Foynes Port identifies key issues which are essential for further expansion. The Minister mentioned the most important ones in his speech. I compliment him on referring to the N69. He took the opportunity to come to Foynes and to state that he would do everything possible to ensure that, after many years of lobbying, the National Roads Authority will upgrade the N69 . He also said he would speak to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, about this matter. That does not necessarily mean it will be upgraded to a national primary route. We want resources made available because much commercial traffic travels on that road on a daily basis. It will benefit Foynes if we can make further finance available for the N69.

The Minister also mentioned the development of the port access road which is important for a number of reasons. The people of Foynes have been patient, although their lifestyles have been upset as a result of business at the port. We need further investment to protect the environment and to provide easier access to the piers so that Foynes Harbour can progress in the future. Iarnród Éireann should also consider upgrading the rail link to Foynes, the condition of which was detrimental to the development of Foynes in recent years.

Shannon Development and IDA Ireland must address the development needs of rural Limerick through the establishment of a model industrial park at Foynes which would be serviced by the port. I recognise that a realistic and pragmatic view must be taken in developing the estuary's potential which would be best served by an inclusive port authority for the Shannon Estuary with a headquarters located in Foynes, which is the centre of shipping commerce in the estuary. I compliment the Minister on reiterating his view that the operational headquarters of the new port company should be at Foynes. I disagree with him about putting Shannon first in the new name. I would prefer if it was called the Foynes Shannon estuary port company rather than the Shannon Foynes estuary port company. There is a sense of pride in Foynes and in west Limerick about the name.

The case for investing in and developing a commercial trading harbour on the estuary and a centre in Foynes is compelling on a cost benefit basis. Any other approach would fly in the face of existing and potential commercial needs. The KPMG report states that tonnage projections are unlikely to be achieved without further investment in craneage, hoppers and grabs which will cost approximately £2 million. The Minister mentioned the urgent need for finance to be made available now for craneage and hoppers from the Department and the Department of Finance because next week or next month will be too late.

Dirt and dust are causing great difficulties for the operators at the port and for those living along the street. There are serious health and environmental concerns about truck spillages and inadequate cargo handling which demonstrates the need for dust suppression equipment. I have already mentioned the condition of the N69 which is also highlighted in the report. It states that further resources should be made available.

The KPMG report highlights many factors, including the fact that too much time is being lost in the debate about patch protection. I agree with that assessment, but we did not always have the opportunity of consultation, which we have on this occasion, when changes were being made. Naturally both harbour boards or port companies were nervous. Everybody is nervous of change but it is great to see a coming together of minds. As a consequence, the report goes on to state that there has never been a single nor a consistent voice promoting the development of all the ports of the estuary. I respectfully suggest that there is now a single and consistent voice representing the ports on the estuary, whether it be political from the management and staff or from the workforce, and we have had widespread consultation.

I am aware of the genuine concerns expressed by the minority and I would like to see the Minister, Deputy Fahey, take the opportunity, over the course of the passage of the Bill both in this House and in the Lower House, to arrive at a solution that will be acceptable to all sides. That can be achieved and it is the best way for all of us to go forward. There is a great spirit of goodwill in Foynes and in Limerick that the Bill would proceed. It will be good for everybody and I understand the Minister is on record as saying there will be no losers, and that is what I want. The overwhelming view that the consultants received from the staff, port users, customers, local authorities and interested parties is that a unified estuary authority is the way forward. I sincerely hope the concerns that have been expressed can be addressed to the satisfaction of everybody.

The Minister referred to the fact that he put an implementation board in place. I compliment him on that and I wish the chairman and members of that implementation board every success. One of the members, who was with us here today and who represents Foynes Port on the implementation board, has taken on a major task and I am sure he will be responsible in carrying out his duties. The Minister stated clearly that it will be his responsibility to examine the question of future investment in Foynes and indeed in Limerick, to put concrete, costed proposals together and to bring them to the Minister. He has assured us of his commitment to investment, and that is very welcome. A level of investment has to be decided. That will have to be substantial if we are to make a success of the unification of both ports. I wish the implementation board every success in its endeavours and in the various responsibilities the Minister is passing to the board. The Minister mentioned a timeframe of 18 months to two years but if we can do it sooner it will be for the benefit of everybody.

I want to reiterate a few brief points. The most important point that will be made during the course of the debate in both Houses is that investment for Foynes is badly needed. That has to be the number one priority. I mentioned the importance of upgrading of the N69, as did the Minister. We want to protect and enhance all the jobs in Foynes and to create many more. The port access road is of vital importance, both for the operation of the port and for the common good of the community in Foynes. It is important that the name of the port would be the Foynes Shannon Estuary Port Company. I welcome the Minister's comment that the operational headquarters of the company will be at Foynes.

I compliment the Minister for making himself available to both myself and my colleagues. He has been very fair to everybody concerned. I will continue to talk to him on this issue and I assure him of any help I can give him during the passage of the Bill because it is important for everybody that the Bill should have a speedy passage through this House and the Lower House and that it becomes law for the good of both Foynes and Limerick and for the common good of west Limerick. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O'Toole

I, too, welcome this legislation. I would go along with the points made in support of harbour authorities and port companies. I recall that the passing of the Harbours Act, 1996, brought with it some very focused and positive information, canvassing and lobbying by people from the different port authorities and port companies around the country. They impressed me at that time as being people who knew what they were about, who knew what was important for their area and who had the greater good in mind. That was particularly so in the case of the Shannon Estuary, and Limerick and Foynes in particular. I congratulate them on the work they have done in the intervening time and on this very positive approach. The hardest thing to do in Ireland is to put together two separate entities. We have had very little success in that area, no matter what we have tried to join together. I congratulate all those involved in coming together to move this legislation forward.

On a relevant note, I have spoken many times in this House over many years about the need to co-ordinate activities in the Shannon and the need to have a consolidation of the whole range of administrative functions involved in the River Shannon. What I see today is a step in the right direction. The Government has finally decided that the Shannon Estuary requires one overall governing authority. That is welcome but, as far as I know, the Limerick Port Authority stops at Mallow Street Bridge and does not go beyond it. The reality is that we also need a consolidated approach to all navigation on the Shannon, right up to the Erne waterway. Their different functions is not the issue of this particular legislation but I want to refer to them at this stage.

The Government side of the House unfortunately refused to support the Shannon River Council Bill which could have knitted in nicely with the legislation before the House today. Wearing my hat as a trade unionist, I believe the future of this country depends on us sustaining growth in the economy. Over the past ten years in particular we have seen a huge increase in our exports and imports but in terms of our trade balance, that has improved year upon year. There is now major movement of goods and freight in and out of the country and our ports are very much the conduits for the creation and distribution of wealth. For that reason, this legislation is crucially important. It is important also to recognise it as part of a broader infrastructure.

I welcome the comment in the Minister's contribution, and in the contributions of other Senators, on the need to recognise that we need infrastructural support for the ports. There is no point having a state of the art port if the access to the port, and indeed all the facilities within the port, are not also supported. That is particularly the case in the area of Foynes. It is not a question of upgrading the N69; it is about replacing it. It is probably an understatement to say that it has been closed for the past month and one would hardly notice it. Even if the road is upgraded, it will not be adequate to deal with heavy trucks of the kind that will be servicing the port. It is vitally important that we have quick and easy access.

The Tralee-Listowel railway line must be upgraded. Senator Cregan raised a point about the rail link to Foynes but the rail link to Listowel is equally important. I will refer to Ballylongford later, which has been referred to positively by the Minister. Major development can be done and what is welcome about this Bill is that it now allows us to examine that as an entity. I feel slightly uncomfortable about the tradition of the Lord Mayor of Limerick sailing down the Shannon Estuary and throwing a dart into the water at the mouth of the Shannon to give some sort of old support for the view that the Lord Mayor of Limerick had control over the Shannon Estuary. For once we have got at least closer to Kerry, if we have not got all the way in this legislation.

Huge business is being run on the river. It is important to clarify things because many Limerick people are very confused about the new Shannon River crossing. The Minister has outlined the options. However, I would stress that there are only two options, a high-level bridge or a tunnel. Anything else would be short-sighted and should not be allowed. High-level bridges have worked quite well, for example the extraordinarily high-level bridge across the lower reaches of the Thames Estuary which is the final link on the M25 on its eastern side, the bridge across the Tay at Dundee which is also very high, and the Forth Bridge.

We have the technology to build high-level bridges. That would be my first choice. The alternative is a tunnel. Restricting navigation because heavy traffic will not be going up to Limerick docks but will be stopping in Foynes would be very negative. The world moves on very quickly. It is only 150 years since somebody, out of ignorance, did not allow the railhead in Limerick to go as far as the harbour. That is something for which Limerick paid the price for 100 years. Similarly, the wrong decision now in relation to bridges could lead to difficulties in the future if a different design of water transport or other type of transport were restricted by a bridge which was too low.

Water-based tourism is another aspect to which I want to refer in relation to Limerick dock. The huge development above Mallow Street Bridge in Limerick which combines the laying of a new sewerage scheme with the development of a new weir and a new navigation system through Limerick City is to be welcomed. I do not know whether Limerick people realise what the changes will mean for tourism development. It means that boats on the Shannon will now be able to come right down to the Estuary through Ardnacrusha and into Limerick. There is a huge industry to be developed, not just in the tiny new marina which is being planned around the Hunt Museum but in the Limerick dock area which could be developed as a leisure port as well as a commercial port. All the best places in the world have a combination of commerce and leisure. That could also be done in the Limerick port area which could be extended, although many people might object to that.

It should be remembered that with the opening of Limerick navigation, a whole range of tourism possibilities will be opened up which have never been considered for west Limerick, north Kerry or south or west Clare before. For instance, the Kilrush marina has been ridiculed because it has not done great business. People have said that the State wasted money on it. It did not. The State did the right thing there. Kilrush will find its new level when the navigation of Limerick is opened and it becomes possible to have cruises from Limerick down to Kilrush, on to, perhaps, Carrickaholt, which also needs upgrading, and across to Ballylongford.

Ballylongford certainly needs upgrading, and I am glad the Minister mentioned that. It needs to be developed not just as a commercial port but also as a tourist port. Given that it is only a couple of miles from Ballybunion, a whole new range of options will be created there. Similarly, there is potential in Tarbert as well as Foynes. Many of these are not part of the port responsibilities in this legislation. However, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources should take a broader view. The harbour authorities, boards and companies have shown skill and expertise in administration. They could, with additional resources, take on additional responsibilities in some of these areas, and that is what they should do.

I do not know the position in regard to Shannon port itself. All one ever sees when passing it are restrictions. There must be a possibility of its being used as well. What is its future? How much is it used? Is it used? There is no public access. It seems to be used simply for the taking on board of aviation fuel. It could do more than that in terms of taking traffic off the road if the harbour authority for the estuary could divert traffic from one place to another. Goods going to the northern part of the country should be able to go through Shannon. I do not know what infrastructure exists on the land side of the Shannon port, but there are possibilities there also.

In terms of infrastructure, Ballylongford should be developed as should the Shannon port, Foynes as outlined here, and also Limerick itself. I would like to hear the plan for Limerick. Development has always been restricted by the fact that it is tidal and is only accessible at certain times and to certain vessels. I listened to the Minister's proposals for the development of Limerick which should not be forgotten about. It is a very good idea to put the headquarters in Foynes. It is the best place for it because there is a long tradition of dealing with international trade in Foynes and it should be brought forward.

The rail link should be an absolute priority and it should not just be to Foynes but to Listowel because that could be the rail head for Ballylongford. If Deputy Deenihan gets his way and the Lartigue line is re-opened, one never knows what might be done. We might be taken on the monorail from Ballylongford to Listowel. Ballylongford is ideally situated. The fact that this will now be under the control of one board means that there need not be any kind of internal competition. This is a new resource. As part of the PPS and the national development plan, the development of infrastructure is crucial. It is not a case of allocating a couple of million pounds here and a couple of million pounds there. Serious investment of much more than was indicated by the Minister is needed to develop at least the four ports of the Shannon Estuary, Foynes, Limerick, Ballylongford and the Shannon port. I would like to hear more about the jetty and the port at Shannon and whether it has potential. I suspect this Bill probably does not give control over the jetty at Shannon, because that is the way Departments work. If that is the responsibility of another Department it may not be included in this – I may be wrong about that – but Government exists to streamline such things and I ask that that be done.

Let me restate the issues. We have in our harbour boards and port companies people who have much expertise and potential. The proposed development should be massive. Let me put it in simple terms. The Government has £40 billion to spend over the next six years. I do not know how it is going to spend it. These are the kinds of proposals that have not ranked highly in the list of priorities which the Government has outlined. I am glad the Minister mentioned decentralisation, but I think he just mentioned that simply as a political explanation. It is a good enough explanation, but it is broader than that. To be absolutely clear, this a real way in which access from the Continent can be developed. There is space, a lot of water, good clearance and good depth. There is much that can be done in the Shannon Estuary. I would like to see it developed even more than is proposed. I look forward to seeing the whole port area developed

I congratulate the Department on moving the project to this stage. I also congratulate the two harbour companies for agreeing to the merger and allowing it to develop. I wish them well. Many Senators are very supportive of what they are trying to do. If they can come up with proposals in the future that will further develop the potential of their area in a broad and catholic way, looking at all the different aspects, then they should do so. I would like to see them put forward proposals to develop water-based tourism which they could control. If a boat wants to pass Shannon harbour, whether it is a coaster, a huge cargo ship or a small leisure cruiser, it must still get permission and contact the harbour master. It is right for them to have control over that area.

I wish the Bill every success and I will support it. I also wish the new estuary authority, the Limerick and Foynes authority, every success. I would have called it the Ballylongford company because I am inclined to support the underdog. This new authority has a huge potential. I look forward to its putting forward creative and progressive proposals for the future. I also hope that the Government will give it the necessary support, both monetary and financial, because it is important for the infrastructure of the future.

When Ireland finally reaches the top of the boom and starts to descend into some form of depression, which is the inevitable conclusion of economic cycles, we should have the infrastructure in place so that we can work our way out of it again. This is the type of infrastructural investment that we need in the ports, railways and roads. I wish the Bill well.

Ms Ormonde

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Wallace, to the House.

I do not have an in depth knowledge of this Bill because I do not live in the locality. I have come here to support my colleague, Senator Denis Cregan, and also because I have taken an interest in the development of all of this area. I spoke at length on it in 1996 during a debate on the Harbours Act. I know the area very well from the Kerry, Limerick and Clare side. I am here today to support my colleagues in the merger of the two ports into one unit, the single port company management. This is to be welcomed. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on initiating the Bill in the Seanad and giving it top priority.

Nothing negative has been said about this Bill. One must say that all the pluses stand out immediately. This is providing for a new co-ordinated approach which will focus on the marketing of the whole area, not just Shannon or Foynes. There will be a united front in deciding how best we can develop the mid-west area. I can see nothing wrong with it. I am repeating some of the points made by other speakers. I am here to support and to re-emphasise that it must be good for the area and will bring about a mix of industry and develop our tourism.

Senator O'Toole talked about how we could develop tourism in west Limerick, north Kerry and the aquaculture sector. This new concept will result in great moves forward. The opening up of the mid-west area means that we are decentralising in a big way. We are moving forward and moving out of our main cities, Dublin and Cork.

I congratulate and welcome representatives from Foynes Port. They took the responsibility to come here today rather than give their support in letter form. They wanted to be here to help us move this legislation forward. That too is to be welcomed.

I am glad that a special implementation body has been set up to facilitate the transition from a double management structure to a single one. I have no doubt that the experience of the people who have been selected to oversee the transition of management will make it flow very easily.

When two management structures come together there will be conflict and unease about jobs and whether the new management will pose a threat to the old system. I have no doubt that the implementation body and the advisory board that will be set up to help these bodies come together will ease any problems relating to salary structures, conditions and prestige or the nature of someone's previous job. There will be no threat to those positions. The Minister has said that these matters will be treated in a sensitive way. He reassured all the staff that the conditions that existed under individual managements will be enhanced. He also said that under the new structure each person will be looked after in a non-threatening way.

It is important to inject capital if we want to merge two ports together under one management. The Minister referred to that in relation to the infrastructure. If we do not have proper infrastructure then we will not be at the races. There is no point having a theoretical plan that looks beautiful on paper. Unless we have accessibility and a proper road infrastructure we are wasting our time. I am glad to hear the Minister say that he visited the area, talked to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government about the national roads development plan and that the N69 will be upgraded. I am also delighted to hear about the development of the port access road. Roads should be our priority. Management can be done around a table and sorted out quite easily. Unless we prioritise and allow time to develop the roads we will be left with an effective management structure in place but inadequate roads to handle the amount of commercial traffic entering the ports. This would be greatly to the detriment of the development of the mid-west area.

I welcome this legislation. I hope the Minister will inject capital into the area. I hope he will invest money in modern cargo handling equipment and inject capital into the development of rural industry. The name of the authority seems to have become an issue. Having listened to his speech I think that this problem can be ironed out. All of the small problems can be sorted out by round table discussion. The Minister has said that he is very open to discussion and to listening to the views of the people involved who are in our midst today.

I welcome the process of decentralisation. I grew up in the country but am now living in Dublin. We have become top heavy in Dublin for a long time. I would like to see more jobs decentralised. I would like the Department of Education and Science to co-ordinate the development of courses that would complement rural industries in Kerry, Limerick and Clare. I would also like the mid-west area to be developed. Decentralisation will enable a balanced approach to economic development and prevent Dublin remaining top heavy.

I am delighted to talk on this subject and to lend my support in any way I can to the Senators and Deputies from this area who want to bring this legislation forward, improve infrastructural development and make it a worthwhile project over the years to come.

Mr. Manning

It is not my intention to speak to the substance of the Bill. Senator Caffrey has already done that on behalf of the Fine Gael Party and he clearly stated our welcome for it. I have been informed, however, that there is a possible challenge to this Bill on the basis that parts of it are more suited to a private Bill than to a public Bill. Senator Ormonde's eyes glaze over when I mention private Bills – she and I spent a long winter suffering them. It is important, however, to make this point on Second Stage and to ensure the Cathaoirleach is informed and can make a judgment on the matter.

I was asked by those putting legal arguments supporting this view to take this action. It might have been better to do this when the Bill was published but we live in an age of constitutional litigation and I do not want anyone to feel that a legitimate point of view was not freely expressed in the House or that people were deprived of their rights through the failure of the House to facilitate them. The Cathaoirleach will be sent a copy of the submission and it is for him to judge the profundity of the matter.

Mr. Bonner

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace. I am delighted to see the Bill before the House. When I was at national school, two of the first place names I learned were Foynes and Shannon. I am delighted to support the Bill because it will create huge opportunities for the estuary and the counties around it.

Following the review of the operation and structures in the Shannon Estuary sea ports carried out by KPMG Consulting, the Minister secured Government approval to implement a major initiative for the estuary. It was agreed that the best approach for efficient management was to establish one new port company called the Shannon and Foynes Port Company. This will amalgamate the existing Shannon Estuary Port Company and the Foynes Port Company which, for many reasons, were not able to avail of the many opportunities the Shannon Estuary presented, particularly to the mid-west. It will also eliminate the many threats that exist to the region due to the structures and cash flow difficulties under the present arrangements. The new arrangement which will be put in place will lead to a more co-ordinated approach to activities in the Shannon Estuary, such as industry and shipping, and to the further development of tourism, aquaculture and leisure and recreation facilities.

The estuary is a valuable national asset because of its length, breadth and depth. It is the Government's wish to develop it as the primary port on the west coast and one of the main ports in the State. The opening of the motorway from Dublin to Galway and Limerick will ensure much trade will be diverted to the area. Senator Caffrey mentioned that 90% of our exports leave the State on ships. With the development of the roads infrastructure, more trade can be diverted to that area. It has the potential to handle major shipments and become a major link for transatlantic and European maritime business.

The Bill provides primarily for the amendment of section 43 of the Harbours Act, 1996. The KPMG report stated, and the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources agreed, that the functions carried out by the existing companies can be performed in a more efficient and cost effective manner by one authority. This will give a single, coherent voice in the marketing of the existing ports through more focused management, a more structured approach to infrastructural development and a more rational approach to the best use of the terminals and other assets. These will come about from greater efficiencies in economies of scale.

The amalgamation of the Foynes Port Company and the Shannon Estuary Port Company will allow the new entity to compete more efficiently with other ports, provide a better service to users of the port, and lead to a more co-ordinated development of the estuary.

The Bill provides for an implementation board, which has already been put in place under the chairmanship of Mr. Proinsias Kitt. One of the members of the board is present and I wish him and his fellow directors every success in the tasks facing them over the next 18 months in implementing the transition from two companies into one authority. The board will oversee the transition to the new single authority, ensure that change is managed and have regard for the concerns of the shareholders, staff and users of the ports. The existing boards will have an input in an advisory role until the transition stage has been completed in 2002.

The review carried out by KPMG shows that there is complete agreement with the proposals in the legislation. Senator Manning referred to a legal challenge and I understand that. Hopefully, however, it can be resolved and the legislation can be finalised for the good of the area and those using the port.

The Government is anxious to provide for further development in the area, particularly the upgrading of the N69 – the Minister visited the area and saw how poor access to it is. Many members of the Cabinet have seen the difficulties in the west and more than £13 billion of the £40 billion made available under the national development plan will be spent there.

Other areas, such as County Donegal, are not mentioned in the Bill. Killybegs is the largest fishing port in Ireland. I could never understand how the fish processors there became so successful when all their produce was exported from the State by road. The Government has spent a great deal on the Donegal town bypass and the road between Donegal town and Ballybofey. Work has also started on the N56 bypass around Mount charles. I ask the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government to ensure the N56 route going west from Donegal town is looked after. Adequate funding must be provided to improve the N56 which leads into Burtonport, a town situated in my area which was once home to a thriving fishing industry but which suffered terribly during the past 15 years. A number of proposed developments have been put forward for Burtonport but the main access road, the N56, must be improved to a standard which will encourage people, even if they are only tourists, to visit the town.

I met the county engineer yesterday and I was informed that there are a number of projects in the pipeline in respect of the development of Burtonport harbour. A proposal relating to the funding of these projects has already been agreed. However, an application will have to be made to increase the amount of money on offer and I trust it will be dealt with favourably. I hope that substantial funding will be provided next year to allow the development of the port to proceed.

The Minister and others referred to the Foynes Harbour access road and the Shannon river crossing. I attended a political bureau meeting of the Committee for Peripheral and Maritime Regions in Sweden last week. The meeting took place in the Gotland area which, like certain stretches of the Irish coast, is surrounded by a large number of small islands. I was amazed by the bridges which the Swedes have constructed, at great cost, to link the islands to the mainland and which are designed to allow marine traffic to pass underneath. What I saw made me realise what can be achieved in this area.

Senator O'Toole referred to the possibility that the proposed fourth Shannon river crossing might take the form of a tunnel. However, having seen what has been achieved in Sweden and taking account of the funding which has become available as a result of the success of the Celtic tiger, I would have no difficulty with the concept of constructing a high level bridge.

I welcome the benefits which enactment of the legislation will bring, particularly to the region with which it deals. I know that there was unanimity among the majority of the people with whom KPMG discussed its report. I wish the development and the unification of the two ports well. I hope that any small problems, even the one to which Senator Manning referred, can be resolved. The report recommended that the legislation be put in place by the end of June 2000. I hope it will be enacted before that date in order to enable the implementation board to carry out its work, to facilitate the establishment of the joint port authority and to develop the region, particularly in terms of encouraging people to become involved in the business of port trading and in marine, aquaculture and other activities. I foresee a great future for the Shannon region, the mid-west and the west. I wish the new company every success.

Mr. D. Kiely

I served as a member of one of the Shannon authorities for over 20 years and I welcome the announcement that the two authorities will finally be amalgamated. For many years the two authorities were at each others throats which hindered development, not only in the Foynes and Limerick areas but along the length of the entire estuary. I am glad the board of the new company will not be large or unwieldy and I am sure its five members will be able to work effectively together.

Major potential for development exists along the Shannon Estuary. I refer here not only to the Foynes section of the estuary but also to the land bank between Tarbert and Ballylongford. In the past 20 to 25 years there has been a great deal of speculation about development in the part of the estuary to which I refer. In 1978 or 1979, the then Government was in a great hurry to purchase land and it paid up to £10,000 per acre for 600 acres of land. At that stage, we believed that an oil refinery would be built on the land bank but that proposal collapsed. Further proposals, including the construction of a smelter, were put forward but nothing came of them. The people living in the area to which I refer are still living in hope that some form of development will take place.

In recent years I attracted interest from abroad for the construction of a freedom ship to be situated on the estuary. This development would have led to the creation of approximately 6,000 jobs but a financial commitment was not forthcoming from either the Shannon authority or the Government. As a result, the development has since proceeded in Honduras which is a great loss to the Shannon Estuary.

A great deal of discussion took place in recent years in respect of the development of a container trans-shipment facility on the land bank to which I refer. The Taoiseach, his Department and the Minister for Finance were involved with this proposal and funding was provided to employ consultants to consider its viability. It is hoped that the development may proceed in the future.

I am excited by the concept of the new company and I welcome the fact that its headquarters will be located in Foynes. When I was a member of the Limerick Harbour Board I was obliged to pass through Foynes every morning on my way to meetings. I saw a great deal of activity going on in the town, with between 200 and 300 people engaged in their work. At that stage, people were being made redundant in Limerick port because the harbour could only cater for smaller ships. Those responsible for the operation of Foynes Harbour had their finger on the pulse and they were able to attract industry to the area and encourage development. They borrowed large amounts of money and invested it in building new quays and piers.

If the new company is to be successful in its operations, the Minister will be obliged to write off any outstanding loans or debts. The new company must be given a fair and honest start and it would be unfair to place any constraints on it. The playing pitch will have to be levelled and outstanding debts will have to be written off because the port at Foynes would not exist without the foresight and initiative shown by those responsible for its operation. These people invested heavily in developing the port's infrastructure and it is good to see the effect this has had on the entire estuary. The people in Foynes must be commended for that. In the past I have been critical about the lack of development on the estuary. However, a real opportunity to encourage such development now exists.

Senator Bonner referred to the development of the N69, which is similar to a dirt road. There is a need to improve the sections of this road which lead into Foynes from both Limerick and Kerry. Improvements will have to be made to the section of the N69 which connects with the ferry in Tarbert and which comes from the direction of Tralee and Listowel in north Kerry. A major investment will be needed to facilitate this development. I read the KPMG report recently and I almost had a seizure because it stated that the N69 would not need to be upgraded during the next 20 years. The money allocated for road development in the national plan appears to be aimed at the construction of new autobahns. We have approached the National Roads Authority to see if proper funding can be obtained for upgrading the N69 because if one wishes to encourage the development of a port or any other site of industry, one must ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place.

If development is to take place on the lower part of the Shannon Estuary on the 600 acre land bank between Tarbert and Ballylongford which remains in the ownership of the State, there will be a need to ensure that a proper infrastructure is put in place. This will mean improving the N69 as it runs from Limerick to Tarbert and on to Tralee. There will also be a need to redevelop the surrounding area. Development has not taken place in this area for the past 25 to 30 years. Not a penny of the money the Exchequer has accrued from the success of the Celtic tiger has been spent in north Kerry. The only investment made in the area was that which we attracted ourselves. That leads me back to those responsible for the success of Foynes. By attracting ships which delivered and collected meat and other cargo at the port, they created jobs in Foynes over the years and they must be commended for that.

The Minister stated that the new authority will be called the Shannon and Foynes Port Company. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse. The words should at least be put in alphabetical order to read the Foynes and Shannon Port Company. That would only require moving a couple of words around and the new title would sound better and be more kosher.

The slate must be wiped clean once and for all. If the new company is to be successful, existing debts must be written off. When the port com panies were originally established, I thought all sorts of magical things would happen. I expected to see entrepreneurs popping up everywhere and activities other than plant shipment occurring on the Shannon. However, the companies' hands were tied and they could not develop properly. If the new company is to be given a meaningful chance, the decks must be cleared and substantial funding must be provided to allow it to develop. Cranes and other new infrastructure and equipment will be required to allow the ports to be modernised and restructured. Funding must also be provided to upgrade the N69 in order that these people can be given a sporting chance.

Anyone familiar with the shipping business will know that a real opportunity exists to make a success of Foynes Port which is the best deep water port in western Europe. Indeed, it is the only natural port in Europe or the world and it has been neglected. I have numerous reports in my office on this matter which the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, took on board. In the late 1980s, when the then Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald and the then Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell, visited the port and cruised up and down the Shannon on speedboats, we thought all manner of industry and development would follow.

People in the area have lived in despair for years but we now have an opportunity to make the port successful. It is pointless setting up a new board with a new title without first clearing the decks and providing the funding required to put the proper infrastructure in place. If that happens, this will be a success story. This is the first positive and meaningful development I have witnessed in regard to the Shannon Estuary in the past 25 years. It is time the people in the area experienced the benefits of the Celtic tiger. Coming from County Kerry, I know we will reap the benefits of this new company because the opportunities to develop the 600 acre State-owned land bank in the Tarbert-Ballylongford area on the deepest waterway in western Europe, which is crying out for development, will be recognised. Foynes Port has been seeking to extend its boundaries for years and the opportunity now exists to do that.

I welcome the Bill and I again urge the Minister to reconsider the new company's name and to change it around slightly and to provide additional funding. The south-west of Ireland has been completely ignored in successive Government programmes. It is high time people recognised that this area is a part of Ireland. As someone who has served on a harbour board for a number of years, I know the new company will go from strength to strength if the proper resources are provided.

Mr. R. Kiely

This is a very progressive Bill. This industry should be rationalised in the same way as other industries have been. Foynes Port Company has been successful since its inception and will undoubtedly continue to be successful.

I was reading a copy of a book entitled The Trucker which refers to Foynes Port as “the gateway to Ireland”. The truth of that statement, as far as maritime activities are concerned, must be recognised. The book goes on to state that the port, situated on Ireland's western seaboard, is the most progressive location for the port industry. The introduction of this Bill, which provides for the amalgamation of the Foynes and Shannon port companies, is evidence that the Minister realises that fact. The port, on the south bank of the Shannon 20 miles downstream from Limerick, is strategically located on the rapidly developing Shannon Estuary, making it ideally suited for importing and exporting goods to Britain, Europe, the United States and other parts of the world.

I recall seeing the first flying boats or sea planes coming into Foynes when I was a young boy. Shannon Airport was developed subsequently. Foynes will go down in history as the place where the first flying boats landed and now as a modern shipping port. I sincerely compliment the former officials, chairmen and workers of the Foynes Port Company who ensured, perhaps in the face of some slight opposition, that Foynes remained Ireland's major port. The late Mr. Tom Cregan, whose son is a Member of this House, served as chairman of the Foynes Port Company for a five year period.

Concerns were expressed about the provision of capital for the new company. I am delighted to see that the new company's headquarters will be located in Foynes. That is important because Foynes has served the shipping industry well. As an island nation it is important that we have deep-sea ports to ensure that big ships have access to our country. Foynes is the ideal location for that. I am delighted that the new single port company will have its headquarters in Foynes. I hope this provision will be inserted in the Bill before it is finalised.

A capital injection is vital to ensure the loan write-off and that the capital works in connection with the west quay are continued. The immediate commencement of the eastern access road to meet safety, environment and development demands must be kept in mind. The N69 must be upgraded to ensure proper access to Foynes, particularly the N69 from Limerick to Foynes, where the traffic is most concentrated. This road must be given priority by the National Roads Authority to ensure accessibility to this important port.

I am very happy to hear the Minister's statement on employment protection. He said:

At a very early stage of the review process, my Department confirmed the position in writing to both port companies that all the employment protections as to salary scales and conditions of service guaranteed by the Harbours Act, 1996, for the members of staff of the predecessor harbour authorities would not be affected by any potential changes to manage ment or operational structures and I reiterate that this remains the case.

This is very important and I am sure that employees will be very happy with this assurance. The Bill will bring increased employment in Foynes, Limerick and the entire Shannon estuary. We must welcome these measures and I commend the Bill to the House.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill. In keeping with the traditions of the House, the contributions were both thoughtful and constructive. I have taken note of the various points raised by Senators and I remind them of the purpose of this Bill, which is to amend the Harbours Act, 1996.

I refer to the matter raised by Senator Manning. Standing Order 128 defines a hybrid Bill as a public Bill, not being a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, affecting private interests in such a way that if it were a private Bill it would, under Standing Orders relative to Private Business, require preliminary notices before its introduction. I am advised that this is not a hybrid Bill. Clearly, it does not affect private rights.

The Bill amends the Harbours Act, 1996, a comprehensive and substantive piece of legislation which provided inter alia for the formation of State port companies and repealed the Harbours Acts, 1946 and 1976, and various other enactments dating back to 1846 and earlier. Neither the Harbours Act, 1946 nor the Harbours Act, 1996 were classified as hybrid Bills. As the port companies are wholly State owned and the provisions of this Bill involve amending the Harbours Act, 1996, and relate to matters solely pertaining to State port companies and their operations, my advice is that private interests are not involved or affected.

The Bill provides that if the Minister of the day is of the opinion that the functions of a company or companies could be performed in a more cost effective and efficient manner by another company or companies, he may establish a new company resulting in the amalgamation of existing companies. Initially, the Bill enables the Minister to amalgamate the functions of the Foynes Port Company and the Shannon Estuary Ports Company. The Bill also allows the Minister for Finance to make available to a company moneys to finance capital works, to inject equity for other purposes and to raise the aggregate amounts of money that can be made available to companies.

It will be recognised that the implementation structures are designed to be simple, effective and non-divisive. The importance of taking immediate action in the case of the Shannon estuary ports industry is also recognised. This is a major development initiative for the Shannon estuary, unanimously endorsed by the users of the facilities with a range of resultant benefits identified. These include the provision of a single coherent voice to the marketing of the estuary ports by a more focused management, greater efficiencies and economies of scale, allowing a more structured approach to infrastructure development as well as a more rational approach to the best use of terminals and assets.

I thank Senators for their contributions to today's proceedings and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mooney)

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. J. Cregan

At 10.30 a.m. on Thursday next.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 15 June, 2000 at 10.30 a.m.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. J. Cregan

At 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 June 2000.