Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jul 1995

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Nealon

This is an area in which I have a particular interest. What criteria was used by the Minister when drawing up the list of 12 ports, which will become semi-State commercial companies, and for excluding others? Sligo port has been excluded from the First Schedule.

It has the alternative of remaining as it is under the Sligo Harbour Commissioners, of going under the jurisdiction of the local authority. Either way would mean the end of Sligo as a commercial port. This would be a pity, because, despite its gallant efforts, it could not continue as it is subject to so many restrictions and inhibitions of one kind or another.

On the other hand, it could have a very good future if it became a semi-State commercial company. As the Minister is aware, it has made tremendous efforts in recent times to advance itself. More recently, it invested approximately £120,000 from its own resources in deep water facilities. As you are aware, Chairman, coming from the area in question, one of the peace dividends is that people from the traditional hinterlands, the background to the environment in areas such as Sligo, Dundalk or Drogheda, are gradually reappearing. I understand that the Sligo Harbour Commissioners has undertaken research which indicates that it would be possible to have many imports from areas such as Fermanagh and Enniskillen brought through Sligo port if it could be put on a proper footing and made competitive through a semi-State footing. It is not competitive at present because of various restrictions and ironically, it is not competitive with a place like Derry which has benefited enormously from EU funding.

Given all the efforts being made by Sligo port there is, in the master plan submitted to the Minister, a good future for the port. If it becomes a semi-State company it can gain from INTERREG II funding. It is only the port outside the remaining ports not within the first 12 that can gain from these funds. Dundalk and Drogheda are already included.

Sligo is the only commercial port between Galway and Derry. It has been a traditional trading port for approximately 500 or 600 years. It is now in danger, despite an excellent board and the efforts made by the Sligo Harbour Commissioners, including a delegation which visited the Minister last week. I understand he was very impressed with their case. The port should be included under these funds. Can the Minister do this by way of amendment, or if not, by way of regulation within the context of the existing legislation? I understand it is possible for him to add another port subsequently to the enactment of this legislation. If so, I ask him to give major consideration to Sligo.

We are dealing with the future of a long established traditional port which can be built up because of the various new factors coming into play and the possibility of INTERREG II funding. Sligo Harbour Commissioners have already, in advance or in hope of being designated a semi-State company, put their own funding in place to back up any INTERREG II funding they may receive. I understand that as well as developing the trade in and out of the port, they have undertaken an interesting commercial devleopment along side it. This is a new concept and could perhaps be followed by other ports in difficulty without the volume of trade that a port like Dublin or Cork may have.

Mr. Gilmore

I am very much aware of Deputy Nealon's interest in Sligo Port as he made a strong case on Second Stage that it should be included as one of the ports which should get semi-State status and be established as a commercial semi-State company. I am also aware that he and the deputation from the port met the Minister recently to discuss the same issue.

How were 12 ports — not 13 — selected as semi-State companies? The recommendation for this was contained in the report of the review group which assessed and analysed the financial possibilities and commercial throughput of each of the ports. The report of the review group makes clear that in deciding which ports should be accorded State company status, it had regard to their financial viability and to the present level of commercial traffic through each port. It went on to give details of the commercial traffic going through each port at the time. The cut off point it used was 200,000 tonnes. The last port they included in the 12 had 205,000 tonnes. The next nearest port at that time had 91,000 tonnes and Sligo Port had 32,000 tonnes. In considering the 25 scheduled ports, there was a very obvious cut-off point with regard to throughput. This was the point decided by the review group in choosing which 12 ports were to be recommended for semi-State status.

With regard to the other 13 ports, including Sligo, there are three options provided for in the legislation. The first is that they remain as they are under the 1946 Act. The second is that they can be transferred to local authorities, which, with the exception of one or two, is a prospect that does not appear to generate a great deal of enthusiasm, either on the part of the ports or the local authorities. The third option under section 87, is that any of the ports could be established as a semi-State company, Section 87 provides a mechanism where this can be done. For example, it is open to Sligo or any other port, to make a case to be established as a semi-State company, with the procedures provided for in section 87 to be used to bring this about.

Mr. Crawford

Dundalk is one of the ports listed, but Greenore is not. While I represent one of the constituencies least affected by harbours, we frequently use them for the importation of feedstuffs for our very important poultry, pig and dairy industry. We also use Greenore for the export of live cattle and other products. What is the situation with regard to ports like Greenore, which is totally separate from Dundalk?

Mr. Sheehan

When did the review group make its findings? Last year, Bantry Harbour Board invoiced over 600,000 tonnes but is not included in the list of 12 under section 7. Is is necessary to form a harbour company to enable a harbour board to get category one status?

Mr. Gilmore

Greenore is not included because it is a privately owned harbour and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no suggestion or request that its status should be changed.

The review group reported in July 1992. Deputy Sheehan knows I met the Bantry harbour commissioners and that one of the issues raised was the possibility of Bantry becoming a semi-State company. That option can be exercised under this legislation. It is possible for harbours other than the 12 listed here to become semi-State companies. Any harbour wishing to become a semi-State company would have to show it was commercially viable for it to do so because it would have to continue to operate on a commerical basis as a semi-State company. To qualify for that status, a company would have to be established under this section to enable that harbour to become a semi-State company.

Mr. Sheehan

Would the fact that a harbour has become a semi-State company mean it would qualify for category one status?

Mr. Gilmore

Under this legislation, there is no category one status. Deputy Sheehan may be referring to the way in which the harbours are scheduled under the 1946 legislation. If a harbour is establshed as a semi-State company the only status it will have is as a company and within that category there is no further subdivision of any category of status. All the companies will be semi-State companies. They will have a commercial mandate and will have to trade and survive commercially.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Chairman

Amendment No. 2 is an alternative to amendment 1 and both may be discussed together, by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 13, subsection (2) (a), line 14, after "may" to insert ", after consultation with the company concerned,".

Following publication of the review group report, the Foynes harbour trustees, in the interests of operational safety, requested the Department to extend their area of jurisdiction. At present, Foynes only exercise control over a small area of water in the immediate vicinity of the harbour. An extension of the limits of Foynes Harbour would involve an encroachment on the area over which Limerick harbour commissioners have traditionally exercised jurisdiction.

The limits of Limerick harbour have never been defined in any statute that can be traced. However, traditionally the commissioners have exercised jurisdiction over the whole of the Shannon estuary with the exception of the harbours of Foynes, Cappa Pier, Kilrush, Glynn, Tarbert and Kildysert. As an extension of the limits of Foynes would involve an encroachment on Limerick harbour's area of jurisdiction the trustees were requested to discuss their proposals with Limerick harbour commissioners in the first instance. The parties were unable to reach agreement. In the preparation of the Harbours Bill it was decided to give the Minister an enabling power so that he could, by ministerial order, extend the limits of any harbour if he so desired, when the new legislation was in place. Section 9 (2) of the Bill confers such a power on the Minister.

However, following publication of the Bill, Limerick harbour commissioners and the Irish Port Authorities Association requested that section 9 (2) be amended to provide that an order under this section could be made only with the consent of each of the companies to which the order relates. A similar type amendment has been requested by Deputy Molloy. For obvious reasons I could not agree to such an amendment. However, I am prepared to amend section 9 (2) (a) to provide that such an order can only be made following consultation with the company concerned. Thus there will be full consultation before any order varying the limits of jurisdiction of any of the port companies is made, but the final dedision in such matters will rest with the Minister. This is the appropriate way to proceed.

Following publication of the Harbours Bill, 1995, my colleague the Minister for Defence and the Marine, Deputy Barrett, in the context of general discussions on the Bill, proposed to both Foynes and Limerick the appointment of an independent mediator with a view to resolving the impasse over the application from Foynes for an extension of their area of jurisdiction. The mediator to be appointed will have to be acceptable to both parties. He or she will listen to the arguments from both sides and the mediator's recommendations will be binding on all parties. I am pleased that Limerick and Foynes have accepted the Minister's proposal in this regard and arrangements are now being made for the appointment of the mediator at the earliest possible opportunity. I recommend the amendment to the committee.

Mr. Molloy

When did both harbours agree to the mediator?

Mr. Gilmore

The meeting to which I refer took place about two weeks ago. We had an indication from the ports within the past few days that they are prepared to accept the appointment of a mediator.

Mr. Molloy

In view of what the Minister said I will not press my amendment. I hope this issue can be resolved amicably between the two harbour boards, whom I do not wish to come between. Two of my colleagues are from one of the constituencies involved and I hope the matter can be resolved to their satisfaction.

Mr. M. Smith

In our amendment we seek to have the jurisdiction of Foynes extended on the basis of the absolute need to do that at this time. The amendment itself requires one change. It says "between the meridians 90th" and it should read "9th". I apologise for that error. The matter goes back a very long time. The jurisdiction of the estuary, Foynes and the problems associated with it are of an historic nature. In 1930, the port and harbours tribunal recognised that it was necessary to define that jurisdiction. The Murphy report said the new Bill should define the jurisdiction for all the harbours.

The requested amendments of the harboured limits of Foynes port company are necessary to exclude the Foynes Roadstone and Foynes deepwater land banks from the new jurisdiction being given to the Shannon Port Company in the Harbours Bill. These adjoining areas of water and land have never been allocated to any harbour and Foynes harbour, the existing limits of which were laid down in an order setting it up in 1890 and have remained unchanged for over 100 years.

In 1890 the average size of vessel was of the order of 250 tonnes dead-weight. The area of water available within the existing limits, fixed in 1890, was adequate for that size of vessel and allowed for several of this size to be anchored in safety within that area. The existing limits of Foynes harbour consist of one mile of foreshore on the southern bank of the Shannon estuary. The total length of the southern and northern banks of the estuary is 120 miles. We are talking about 60 miles of river over that 120 miles of foreshore. The amendment refers to a distance of about 4.5 miles. The port of Foynes has been developed extensively over the past 25 years and is now capable of handling vessels in the classification of 30,000- 40,000 tonnes. The opportunity for the development of this extension would enable them to take liners of a much more significant weight.

The operational reasons for the request are as follows: When ships of the above size commence the approach to the narrow channel they are irrevocably committed to entering the harbour, yet at this stage of approach they are still over two miles from its limits. When vessels enter the harbour they are committed to the occupation of a berth as the harbour is too small to anchor or spring a large loaded vessel. The availability of anchorages in the immediate approaches to the harbour is restricted and it is desirable for the safe and efficient operation of the port that the harbour master should have control over these anchorages so that the same can be allocated to ships awaiting cargo or for any other purpose.

There are many other reasons this should be done. I will not delay the work of the committee in elaborating beyond saying that this matter has been the subject of acrimonious debate for a very long time and will ultimately return to the Minister's desk. It is not likely that there will be local agreement, given the historical significance of and debate over the subject matter. We should take the bull by the horns and implement the recommendation of the Murphy report to specify the jurisdiction now as this may only be considered as the minimum, essential change in terms of the extension of jurisdiction for Foynes. It is recognised that an exceptional job has been done over the years. Enormous trade has been built up from a very small start. The former Minister for the Defence and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, was shocked to learn from the rows over the years between Cork and Foynes that Foynes had such a restricted jurisdiction. The Minister has gone some of the way when he speaks of arbitration, but he and I know that getting local agreement on matters such as this will be extremely difficult and that it would be far better to tidy it up now in the context of this legislation, do as the Murphy report recommends and agree to the amendment.

Mr. Finucane

I welcome the two members of the Foynes Harbour Board, Councillor Kevin Sheehan, the Chairman, and Councillor David Naughten to the committee as observers. They are two colleagues of mine. The Minister is aware that I spoke at length on this issue on Second Stage and my sentiments on it. I have always advocated jurisdiction of Foynes. It is a small request to extend it an extra four miles as it is an area that Limerick harbour had not developed. Given its enlightened management approach, Foynes examined the port and ascertained that it had the capacity to carry 35,000 tonne dead-weight ships. Looking to the future, especially to the new mandate regarding commercial semi-State activities, one must think in the context of larger vessels. If there is to be an expansion of such vessels they will require deeper water. It was, therefore, important that a move was made on extending the jurisdiction by an extra four miles.

The Minister advised that the limits were never defined by statute. As a native of Foynes, with strong connections with its port, I have always been amazed at how fortunate Limerick Harbour Commissioners have been. A mythical dart was thrown into the mouth of the estuary in the past, enabling them to declare the area as their empire fiefdom. However, there is nothing by way of legislation that enshrines any extra rights to Limerick harbour with regard to the estuary.

We in Foynes do not begrudge Limerick Harbour Commissioners their successes. Indeed, by virtue of the commissioner's port at Limerick harbour and of the Aughinish Alumina Port, a mile from Foynes and which produces over 57 per cent of the entire tonnage of seven million tons for Limerick Harbour, most of the other ports on the estuary are dedicated to certain activities, such as ESB electricity generation, Aughinish Alumina Port and the Shannon oil jetty.

Limerick Harbour get munificent reserves of cash as a result of the activities of these ports, while there are minimal implications, financially, with regard to what the harbour puts into them. In view of this, the request regarding Foynes harbour is very reasonable in the context of the estuary.

With regard to the Third Schedule, I agree with the areas defined by Deputy Smith. I have spoken to the Minister of State and the Minister for Defence and the Marine on this issue. While I accept that an independent mediator will be appointed, I hope the mediator will produce a formula along these lines. Will the Limerick Harbour Commissioners relent and give an extra perch to Foynes, considering they have treated the area as their traditional fiefdom? Given a. common sense consideration of the future of both ports, I hope that on Report Stage the Minister will state definitely that the jurisdiction is that which has been requested. I am not pre-empting the mediator's report, but I fail to understand the logic of anybody contradicting a reasonable demand from Foynes to expand the port.

The port has expanded to 300 ships a year, or 1.4 million tonnes. The Government has recently recognised this by granting an extra £5 million to the port to expand the berthage and warehouse facilities. I was disappointed that this was not enshrined in the legislation. If common sense prevails, the request will be accommodated on Report Stage as it is reasonable and valid. The port was established in 1890, over 100 years ago. To leave it with a jurisdiction of one mile is pathetic. A Harbours Bill was introduced in 1946 and has at last been modified to take cognisance of the advances over the years. In doing so, I hope that we are in a new era, that recognition is given to reality and that the area of economic management by Foynes Port is extended. I ask the Minister for reassurance that on Report Stage he will produce a formula which accommodates a reasonable request to extend to the activities of Foynes harbour.

Mr. T. Kitt

I welcome the representatives of the Foynes Harbour Board to the committee as observers. Like other members of the committee, I have been lobbied by the trustees of the harbour. Having read their submission I am impressed with their case. It has also been well argued by many of my colleagues on the committee.

The limits of Foynes Harbour were laid down in 1890, so it is clear that changes must be made, but only on the basis that the harbour has done its work. The results speak for themselves. The annual tonnage has increased by more than 30 times, from a mere 40,000 tonnes per annum in the early 1960s to 1,300,000 tonnes per annum in recent times. The harbour consists of one mile of foreshore on the southern bank of the Shannon estuary.

I welcome the Minister's announcement to refer matters between Limerick Harbour and Foynes Harbour to a mediator. However, the committee should put down a strong marker as to how politicians stand on this important issue. We might come from different constituencies, but we always recognise the work of a small company that grows and is endeavouring to expand. Given that only two other ports, in Cork and Dublin, can accommodate vessels of the size of this harbour, it is important to put down such a marker. This is why I support my colleague, Deputy Smith, in putting forward an amendment which would extend the foreshore from one mile to four and a half miles. It is an important marker by this committee and I support it. I appreciate that the Minister has come forward today to provide a mediator so that both sides can come forward with some kind of agreement. Having listened to the Foynes harbour trustees and having read their submission, it is important for parliamentarians to put down a marker with regard to recognising what they have done and what they plan to do in the future.

Mr. Boylan

I too strongly support the case made here for the Foynes harbour trustees. Even though I come from a constituency far removed from Foynes Harbour, I met the commissioners one Sunday afternoon. I was impressed that they felt their case strong enough to travel the country canvassing Members of this committee. I was impressed by the case they made to me and I read their submission.

They are a successful company and it would be a retrograde step for this committee to place any restriction on them. If there are local jealousies, so be it, we must support small industry and business.

These people run a tight ship and have plans for the future. They see that if they are to develop, they must take recognition of the tonnage of the ships which now come into port. Quick access to and from the harbour is also important and delays cost money. While success today can easily disappear if you do not keep abreast of developments, the people who approached me are aware of the need for these developments. They are being extremely reasonable. They are looking for a small extra portion of the river to be put under their jurisdiction and are prepared to accept a mediator. I would not accept for one moment that goodwill would exist if somebody else had jurisdiction over the area which they need to develop. If we were to give that jurisdiction to somebody else, they could easily curtail this company and that would not be in the interest of Foynes Harbour Commissioners.

The committee has a duty to send a strong signal to the mediator that we do not want to see restrictions placed on this company. We will look at the results of the mediation with interest.

Mr. Sheehan

I too support the move by the Foynes harbour trustees to extend the jurisdiction of their area. I want the Minister to note that this is not creating a precedent. About three years ago, I was successful in persuading the then Minister for the Marine to extend the powers of the Castletownbere harbour master over the waters of the Berehaven sound. He gladly acceded to my request and swiftly brought legislation before the Dáil.

Foynes harbour trustees are not creating a precedent. They are asking for an extension of their jurisdiction to ensure they will be a viable entity in future. Their submission was outstanding. It brings home to us in no uncertain terms the necessity that if they are not allowed the extension which they advocate, they will not survive as a viable harbour authority.

In Foynes, a vessel passing beyond the port limits is not, in fact, putting to sea but continues to enjoy the shelter of the harbour. To avoid congestion in the harbour, it is desirable that the limits be extended to allow vessels to be considered detained in the harbour while at anchorage. This is important, especially as we are in an age which is prone to pollution, etc. If Foynes harbour trustees do not receive the jurisdiction to monitor vessels waiting to proceed to the open sea when the storms calm down, it would be a detrimental step.

Other speakers have outlined in no uncertain terms the necessity for allowing this extension. It is most important that the Foynes harbour trustees get this extension if they are to survive. Local jealousy must be superseded by firm action. I want the Minister to give the green light to this proposal today. If not, he should accommodate it on Report Stage to ensure Foynes gets its rightful share of the Shannon. They are entitled to it. The harbour authority has been in existence for a long time but, unfortunately, they will not survive without getting extra territory and we must ensure that they do. Otherwise, they will not be a viable entity.

Mr. Ring

It is hard to follow Deputy Sheehan. I too support Deputy Finucane and other Members in relation to Foynes Harbour. I was also visited by the deputation and I agree it was very professional. Coming from a coastal town, I could not believe how small Foynes harbour is and how small the area is which they control. I could not understand how they can operate so efficiently and I compliment them on doing so. The harbour has created full-and part-time employment in the area. If the mediator looks at the issues fairly, he will appreciate the situation. If they are curtailed from the other side, they have no hope of operating in the future. Deputy Tom Kitt is right. It would be wrong if we allowed this to happen.

Foynes harbour trustees want to expand and they must. They have done a good job and I wish we had more harbours and business doing so well. We should support them and not put obstacles in their way. I give my full support to it.

Mr. Crawford

The debate clearly shows that committee structures such as this can work in a non-political fashion in the sense that we are having an open and frank discussion. It also shows that the committee structure allows a group, such as Foynes, to use it to their best advantage. While I welcome that, it is something which we must bear in mind.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, Deputy Gilmore, and the proposals of the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Barrett, to bring forward a mediator to try to solve this problem. It is a realistic way to proceed and I hope it will bring about the type of solution that Foynes obviously needs.

As Deputy Ring said, it is hard to follow Deputy Sheehan. Others have also spoken well. Deputy Finucane's involvement in this harbour means that he has a full and deep knowledge of the needs of Foynes. He put forward a strong case. I support it and hope the Minister can facilitate us.

Mr. Leonard

I also received representations from Foynes Harbour Trustees and received their documentation and maps. It was an interesting submission. I was involved in the business of haulage many years ago and it was interesting to examine the details of their warehousing and liquid storage facilities. The port of Foynes is developing and I am glad a mediator has been appointed. I support their case because it seems to be a good one.

Chairman

It looks like you have an easy task, Minister, as all sides are in agreement. Statements as opposed to questions formed the bulk of what was said. Perhaps the Minister has some points to make.

Mr. Gilmore

There was an implied question. There are two related issues here but I want to try to disentangle them. First, there is the question of the jurisdiction of harbour companies and how that is to be decided. We have had a long discussion and Members have contributed much to discussing the request by Foynes Harbour Trustees for an extension of their jurisdiction, but the issue of jurisdiction is an issue that can arise in any estuary or bay where there is more than one harbour. It has arisen now in the case of Foynes and Limerick. The same type of issue could possibly arise in the case of New Ross and Waterford. It could even arise in the case of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire. We have to provide, in the legislation, for a mechanism whereby jurisdictional issues can be resolved.

The Third Schedule of the Bill sets out, more or less, the status quo in the existing jurisdictions as they are understood today. Section 9 of the Bill provides a procedure whereby the Minister can alter the limits of a harbour company’s jurisdiction and that can be done by order. The first issue we have to resolve is how that will be done. A number of formulae have been suggested. The first, suggested by Limerick Harbour Commissioners and the Irish Port Authorities Association and reflected in the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy, is that the jurisdictional issues should be decided by agreement. For obvious reasons, that is not an approach we can take, because there might never be agreement. Given the history, tension and competition that can exist between harbour companies which are close neighbours and competing against each other, that is not an approach we propose to take.

The second approach which is really what is proposed in the Bill as it stands, is that the Minister can simply decide and make an order to extend the limits of a harbour. On reflection, we felt that, in the interests of the involvement of the local harbours and their boards, the local knowledge and the local interest, it was desirable to have a provision whereby the respective harbour authorities would be consulted before the Minister makes the order. The rationale of that stands to reason and that is what I propose we do, in my amendment.

I am familiar with the issue that has arisen in Foynes. I visited Foynes harour at the request of the harbour trustees and saw at first hand their jurisdictional problem. I have no hesitation in stating that the jurisdiction of Foynes harbour is restricted and that the limits will have to be amended. It is a question of how we go about that. The issue is disputed, for obvious reasons, by Limerick.

The Minister suggested, and it has been agreed by both harbour authorities, that a mediator be appointed. We hope to appoint that mediator soon. The intention is that jurisdicton can be agreed between the harbour authorities or recommended by the mediator, which would then be accepted by both harbour authorities. If that is done, I will be quite happy to accept the suggestion made by Deputy Finucane. If the mediator has reported, prior to Report Stage of this Bill, then we can incorporate, by way of a Report Stage amendment, the new jurisdiction recommended by the mediator. If, for some reason, that does not happen before Report Stage, we still have the option of the Minister making an order which would reflect the mediator's report or whatever jurisdiction is decided on.

Chairman

We have given those amendments and that section enough time.

Mr. M. Smith

I appreciate the speed with which the Chairman wishes to proceed.

Chairman

If I were to spend that length of time on every harbour, we would not get this Bill on the Statute Book before the end of next year.

Mr. M. Smith

It is normal where one proposes an amendment to have an opportunity to speak. There is consensus on this matter and I have no intention of pressing for a vote in circumstances where either somebody might be embarrassed or where the party whip might create problems. I am anxious to get a resolution on this problem. It is clear from what the Minister said that he, having visited Foynes, recognises the jurisdictional limits there. Suffice it to say that modern legislation on pollution, customs, marine surveys and all such areas require the limits to be defined specifically. That will be a feature of modern legislation and its application to the future, so it is urgent.

Will the Minister give a broad outline of the parameters within which the mediator will work? Clearly, mediation is welcome and has been accepted by both sides. The criteria laid down for a mediator will be important. It could also be important, where local input is involved, to have agreement which has characterised this debate. Can the Minister give me any detail, because it seems, realistically speaking, we will be coming back to Report Stage in September or October? August is mostly considered a holiday month, and it is not realistic for the Minister to think that there will be a resolution in that timescale on an issue like this. Will the Minister, therefore, give me some idea as to the kind of parameters within which the mediator will operate?

Chairman

We had agreed that we will go as far as we can today and that we will not sit tomorrow.

Mr. M. Smith

Was that agreed?

Chairman

It was agreed unanimously, and the second part of our discussion of the Bill will not take place until early September. The Bill will, if passed on this Stage, go back to the Dáil for Report and Final Stages in October.

Mr. Molloy

The decision to appoint a mediator is helpful to the situation that has developed. Where there is local dispute on an issue of this kind between adjoining authorities, a resolution by consent is the best option, if it can be achieved and the appointment of a mediator is the best way to achieve that. There have been cases where one local authority was reluctant to allow another to expand into its area. There is a long running history of this in the same region, where Limerick Corporation and Limerick County Council are reluctant to agree to an extension. One is not prepared to cede ground for the expansion of the other; the county is not prepared to cede ground to the city for its expansion. In Galway, there were successful negotiations between the corporation and the county council for the expansion of the city area. It worked well by consent, it was not forced or rushed, but done through consultation.

That was the purpose of my amendment. I was conscious of the proposal in section 43 (2), which relates to powers to transfer functions from one harbour company to another. Subsection (2) states an order under this section shall only be made with consent of each of the companies to which the order relates. That same principle is what I proposed in my amendment. As I said earlier, I am not pressing the amendment now, because of the hope for an amicable solution.

Mr. Gilmore

The next step in the process is the appointment of a mediator and we intend to suggest names to both authorities so they can agree on one. The mediator would then listen to the case presented by the Foynes Harbour Trustees and the Limerick Harbour Commission in relation to the extension and he would make a recommendation which would be binding on all sides. If that recommendation is made in sufficient time for it to be incorporated in the Third Schedule of the Bill, I will bring forward an amendment to incorporate it in the legislation and that will then give effect to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.