Amendments Nos. 4, 23 and 29 are related to amendment No. 3 and all may be discussed together.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 14, subsection (4), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(d) Promote marine and harbour related leisure activities.".
It might be said that consideration has already been given to marine and harbour related leisure activities in the legislation, but it is important to specifically provide for it in the primary legislation. We are moving into an age where leisure activities and the development of tourism are issues of primary importance, as shown by the increase in resources being provided for tourist development in the national development plan. Interest in this issue among the public is also growing all the time.
Many of our towns are situated on a river. It is hard to know the historical reason for it. It may have been done to give those living in the towns some protection against aggressors or maybe it was used for sheltering purposes. We do not exploit the potential of our water resources. In the current development of tourism, we must get a specific mandate to incorporate provisions of this kind, which require companies to concentrate their activities, as far as possible, in a commercial ethos in the development of marine and harbour related leisure activities, into new legislation like this. For that reason, I felt the Bill would be stronger by adding this provision, which enjoys all party support.
A part of the provisino applies to commercial seaports. The primary function of the new port companies will be to provide facilities and accommodation for goods and passengers ships and their cargo, in other words to ensure that our tourists and cargo can get to and from their destination with the least possible delay.
The Bill will also create the freedom for ports to develop recreational facilities and obviously, this must be done within commercial parameters. It is my policy — and that of the Department — to encourage such developments. Section 11 of the Bill, which sets out the principal objectives of the new port companies, is broad enough to enable them to become involved in marine tourism and leisure development and activity should they so desire.
On the proposed section 12 amendment, the port companies will, in any event, be required to have due regard to the environmental consequences of their operations. Certain port development works are now subject to an environmental impact assessment as part of the planning process. Any proposal to dump dredged spoil at sea is subject to permit by my Department. The ports are at present, and will continue to be, subject to environmental legislation. I will expect the port companies to have due regard to the amenity consequences of their operations.
Having said that, these bodies will be expected to operate as commercial undertakings. Circumstances may arise where, in the interests of commercial shipping, it may be necessary to interfere with existing amenity facilities. Commercial decisions with due regard to amenity and environmental implications will have to be taken on a case by case basis. I would, of course, expect the harbour companies to act responsibly in this area.
Amendment No. 23 suggested by Deputy Smith is an issue that will in any event be considered in the context of performance audits. Many ports incur expenditure on the maintenance of recreational and amenity facilities. This area of expenditure can be outlined in the company's annual report to the Minister if so desired by the companies concerned.
I ask the Minister to consider Deputy Smith's amendment. Surely there is room for leisure activities; we should encourage them.
There is an excellent boat club on the River Barrow at New Ross which is intent on providing facilities, in conjunction with the New Ross Harbour Commissioners and possibly with the new port company. It would be desirable for them to work closely together. Putting this amendment into the Bill would be a wise move and a recognition by the Minister and the Government of the tremendous opportunities presented by our rivers.
These new port companies would have the expertise required by people who may be charting new waters, if one pardons the pun. The John F. Kennedy Trust at New Ross intends to provide a life-size replica of the ship on which Pat Kennedy — the great-grandfather of John F. Kennedy, the former US President — sailed from New Ross in 1849. Our harbour board would be most anxious to promote that type of activity which would, in itself, bring a new status to the town and to tourism. I cannot see any good reason for not including these amendments in the Bill. Having visited New Ross and the John F. Kennedy Centre and seen the vast potential for the River Barrow, I would be inclined to agree with them.
On amendment No. 4, the planning process and environmental impact assessments form part of new planning operations for the greater part of these type of developments. The awareness of environmental considerations is growing and notwithstanding our planning, most of us are now familiar with the mistakes of the past. It is important that an environmental and amenity ethos is developed to try to ensure that the kind of developments we carry out, in their concept and thinking, take account of our great natural and environmental strengths.
Many of the problems encountered at present are due to a lack of consultation and the fact that the public is not au faitwith ongoing development. The companies act on a commercial basis and fail to take account of this requirement. As a result, they encounter many planning difficulties which might have been overcome if there had been much better and open discussion from the beginning about what is involved and how these matters could be resolved.
I am in favour of commercial development but it must be in harmony with the environment and we must not have the spectacle of opposite sides fighting for years in the courts. If that type of ethos was included in the Bill, the board would be much more conscious that these matters must be considered, not just in the context of planning laws but as a company ethos.
I do not consider the amendments are related to the extent suggested by the Chairman. However, I accept there is a relationship. My fear in this area is based on my experience as a Minister, of dealing with legislation. I support the concern being commercial, but it can mean that a company providing a good amenity that perhaps costs it significant funds, may be placed in the position that the public use of the facility and its maintenance and caretaking become less significant.
It is important that the companies are encouraged to carry out work on a project which encourages the public to use it, such as a walkway or a pier. They may argue this is not something from which they can make money and I accept that point. Some cognisance must be taken of that requirement, which is why I put forward the amendment. I do think it is directly related to the other amendments to the extent to which the Chairman considers they are related. However, to what extent can the Minister help us reach an accommodation in this area?
The amendments are grouped but I will put them separately.
I share Deputy Smith's view in relation to linking the amendments, I understand they relate to the same subject matter but my response is slightly different in relation to the first two amendments.
I do not have any difficulty in principle with the first two amendments regarding harbours promoting marine and harbour related leisure activities and harbour companies having due regard to the environmental and amenity consequences of their operations. As I said earlier, I expect harbours companies will have regard to the environmental consequences of their actions and adopt the best environmental prctice.
A number of points should be considered regarding the two amendments. Are they necessary? My view is that they are not. The section covers the principal objects of the respective companies, which are stated in quite wide terms as the Bill stands. Subsection (1) (d) states "to engage in any business activity either alone or in conjunction with other persons, that it considers to be advatageous to the development of its harbour,". This clearly could include marine and harbour related leisure activities.
Subsection (2) provides that "Nothing in this section shall prevent or restrict the inclusion among the objects of a company as stated in its memorandum of association of all such objects and powers as are reasonably necessary..." In other words, when established, each company must draw up its own memorandum of association. The companies will be free to include in that memorandum of association specific objectives which relate to that harbour.
In relation to the first amendment, I am most familiar with the harbour located in my constituency, Dún Laoghaire, and clearly one of its principal objects will be the promotion of marine and harbour related leisure activities. This is as it should be but I can think of other harbours which might not want to put the same emphasis on this area. They might want the freedom to either include it or include it in a different form in their memorandum and articles of association.
If this was included as a general objective in the legislation, there would be an obligation on all harbours to include the promotion of marine and harbour related leisure activities in their objects. There may be individual harbours which, for various reasons, are not in the leisure area as a result of location or the nature of the business carried out there, and they may not want to get into that area. Does Deputy Smith wish to place that obligation on all harbours?
Amendment No. 4 relates to having due regard to the environmental and amenity consequences of its operations. I have no difficulty with this point. I am happy to consider the two amendments between now and Report Stage because there is no disagreement on the objectives we wish to achieve. However, in relation to the first amendment, Deputy Smith may wish to reflect on whether he wants to place an obligation on all harbours to include marine and harbour related leisure activity in their objects.
I understand what Deputy Smith is attempting to do in the third amendment, which is to reflect in the performance audit and accounting of the harbour company the non-commercial activity in which a harbour engages, such as the maintenance of the piers in Dún Laoghaire or the walkway in Drogheda. Such activities are important to the overall fabric of the harbour and its public enjoyment in general.
Individual harbour companies may want to reserve their options as to whether they would always want to have that aspect included in their performance audit and accounts because there is a dynamic between the harbour company and commercial users of the harbour. Perhaps Deputy Smith might wish to reflect further on this matter.
If the objectives as set out in section 11 are accepted, there is a danger that harbours which were traditionally open to the public will become commercial entities. Somebody may decide at management level that it is best to seal off the harbour or large portions of it, which were traditionally accessible to the public, because the commercial criteria dictate it could run more efficiently if that were done. A large number of harbours, including those mentioned, for example, Dún Laoghaire and Galway, where the harbour itself has traditionally been a place of leisure.
There would be considerble opposition if anyone tried to cut off a section of Galway harbour. However, there is nothing to say that the board could not commercially and sensibly do so if it follows the objectives outlined by the Minister. There should be a provision to guard against that type of activity. Somebody might do something for commercial reasons, while forgetting that people have traditional rights.
I accept the situation is different in relation to specialised or purpose built harbours like Moneypoint to which people have not had traditional rights of access. I do not know how the Minister will phrase an amendment which would be better than that proposed by Deputy Smith to guarantee traditional rights. Given the objectives, there could be a problem in future if we do not include a provision. We have seen how companies have used such powers to take away traditional rights. They have ridden roughshod over communities for purely commercial reasons and I do not believe that would be acceptable in this case.
The Bull Wall in Dublin is a perfect example of something which was built originally for navigational and commercial purposes but which has become a leisure area where people go to walk, particularly at weekends. The public should not be deprived of such facilities. We could face a problem if there is no obligation on these companies in their objectives to avoid doing this.
I compliment the Minister on his significant change in attitude since we were on opposite sides of the fence. There are a number of restrictive provisions in the Bill which require companies to obtain ministerial, marine and financial sanctions and other such requirements. In circumstances where the Minister agrees with me in principle, he should accept the amendments.
This country has a population of 3.5 million — 5 million if one includes the entire island. Our second largest industry will be tourism, which is labour related. We will invest more in it and encourage people to seize opportunities to attract visitors. This is where I fundamentally disagree with the Minister. There are areas in this country which do not know anything about tourism. Visitors will be attracted to remote centres for a number of reasons as Europe develops and people want to get out of cities and look for new tourism products. We want to encourage people to travel to this country and we need commercial companies and cheaper rates.
Even if a harbour does not have many options in this area at present, they will grow. There is no intention in this provision to require people to do more than is necessary at a given time. Some may decide to do more because they are in Dún Laoghaire, for example, and have the opportunities, while others will do less because they do not have the same opportunities.
The Minister sees nothing wrong with this proposal in principle. However, he argued that it is not necessary. I could argue that many other provisions in the Bill are not necessary. I am talking about promotion and creating an awareness of the environment and tourism. We are requiring companies to have regard for that. They are only required to do what they are capable of doing at any given time. The Minister agrees with that in principle. My colleagues and I would like to work with the Minister on this Bill and we are not anxious to call divisions unless it is essential. However, I will press this amendment because it is one which the Minister should accept.
It would be a pity if Deputy Smith pressed this amendment because, as he will know from long experience, that will then dispose of the matter in a way which he or I might not necessarily like. I do not believe there is a difference in principle between us on this issue. Like Deputy Smith I want to see harbour authorities and companies develop marine and harbour leisure activities. I certainly want them to have regard to the environmental and amenity consequences of any development works they undertake. As Deputy Smith will appreciate, I would like the opportunity to reflect further on the amendments he tabled and argued so cogently for before Report Stage.
We must reflect on a number of issues. There are harbours which one would expect the question of the provision of leisure facilities and so on to form part of their objects and articles of association, while there are some which should have them but may be reluctant. That is something which must be addressed. There is the question of whether it is more appropriate that these objects should be stated in the principal objects of the company in section 11 or whether they should be included in the section on articles of association.
For those reasons I would like Deputy Smith not to press those amendments but to allow me an opportunity to reflect further before Report Stage. I agree with the principle of the amendments and I would have no difficulty returning on Report Stage with an amendment which would reflect that.
As regards Deputy Ó Cuív's comments, I would like to dispel any notion that the enactment of this legislation will result in sections of harbours currently open to the public, being sealed off and the public prevented access to them. State harbours will remain in State ownership. There are a number of clear provisions in the legislation which would prevent the alienation of all or part of the harbours which are publicly owned and controlled. The companies and the composition of the boards of directors is arrived at in such a way that there is a mix between the commercial and the local interest, which will be reflected by the local authorities and, indeed, employee interests. The idea that harbours will be closed to the public is a little fanciful for legislation which specifically maintains the harbours in public ownership. I ask Deputy Smith not to press the amendment, but to allow me the opportunity to see how its objectives can be accommodated and return to it on Report Stage.
As the Minister has undertaken to look at how the specific objects of my amendments can be met in a different way on Report Stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.