asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will outline the balance of advantages locally and nationally in the present arrangements relating to Bantry Bay.
73.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bantry Bay Tanker Terminal.
72.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if an arrangement was made between Gulf Oil and any Irish Government Department, or the Irish Government, for a payment, annually or otherwise, in return for facilities available in Irish territorial waters at Bantry Bay, such as deep water in a sheltered anchorage, which Gulf Oil desired to avail of and then build and further develop at their expense.
74.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if an arrangement was made between Gulf Oil and any Irish Government Department, or the Irish Government, whereby no payment annually or otherwise would be made in respect of facilities available in Irish territorial waters at Bantry Bay.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 72, 73 and 74 together.
Gulf Oil first approached my Department and the Industrial Development Authority in January, 1966, to explore the possibility of obtaining grants and to ascertain the legal and other requirements with which they would have to comply in respect of a tanker transhipment terminal in Bantry Bay. They had been engaged in surveying a number of possible sites in this country and outside it for this purpose, and subject to further examination of the physical and economic aspects of the proposal and the requirements of Irish law and regulations, they had narrowed their choice on Bantry Bay.
Because of the nature of the project the application for a grant from the Industrial Development Authority was rejected. It was decided also that no harbour grant would be made available and that a full commercial rent would be sought in respect of any State foreshore required for the terminal.
On the other hand, it was considered that the siting of the terminal at Bantry Bay would be a worthwhile development in that area, provided satisfactory arrangements could be secured for safety of navigation, prevention of oil pollution and preservation of amenities. Moreover, apart from the permanent employment given, there would be considerable temporary employment afforded by the construction of the terminal, and the regular calls of tankers would be of value to Bantry and the surrounding area. It was also a consideration that the existence of the terminal would provide within our territory very substantial additional oil storage capacity and a large stock of crude oil. There was, finally, the possibility that the location of the terminal at Bantry might encourage further industrial development in the area. It was decided, therefore, to give every encouragement, short of financial assistance, to the company, to locate the terminal at Bantry Bay, subject to the necessary safeguards being agreed.
The company were given all necessary information as to the requirements they would have to meet under the Planning Acts, the Oil Pollution Acts, the Petroleum Acts and other relevant legislation. It was made clear to them in particular that arrangements for the preservation of amenities and the prevention of oil pollution would have to be made to the satisfaction of the Minister for Transport and Power and the appropriate planning authorities.
The necessity for a harbour authority received very careful expert examination in the Department and the conclusion was reached that the satisfactory operation of the terminal at Whiddy Island did not require the intervention of a harbour authority. The enforcement of requirements relating to safety, prevention of oil pollution, etc. are effectively secured by my Department, the Commissioners of Irish Lights and the local authorities and while Gulf Oil have no objection to the establishment of a harbour authority, I do not see the need for such an authority unless and until conflicting interests arise. Gulf Oil have provided at their own expense the facilities and services which would normally be provided by a harbour authority in return for dues and have provided their own harbour at their own expense. There are no grounds for charging dues to them in respect of services which they provide for themselves and which are not required by other users. If a harbour authority were to be set up at a later stage the approved scale of charges would have to take into account the expenditure already incurred by Gulf Oil in the provision of harbour facilities.
The only formal agreement entered into with Gulf Oil was a lease in the usual terms of the area of foreshore required in connection with the erection of the terminal. This agreement was entered into by my predecessor in the exercise of his powers under the Foreshore Act.
The company are not required to pay for the use of territorial waters and there is no precedent for such payments in any country in the world.
The advantages of the project are that Gulf Oil have constructed at Bantry a major oil transhipment and storage terminal at a cost of some £10 million and gave very substantial direct and indirect employment in the process. Permanent employment including employment provided by companies under contract to Gulf, is given to 145 Irish employees. I understand from the company that local expenditure in connection with the terminal amounts to almost £600,000 a year. This includes £250,000 in wages, £116,000 on provisions and supplies, £25,000 on county council rates and £7,000 for foreshore rent. Finally, the provision within our territory of substantial additional oil storage capacity, and a large stock of crude oil is a very important factor from the aspect of national independence and security. As regards scenic amenities, the company's arrangements for the preservation of the scenic value of the area including the landscaping of the terminal have the approval of the planning authorities and my Department.
Did I hear the Minister say that the commercial rent being charged for the lease of the foreshore is £7,000 per annum?
Yes.
What is the length of the lease?
99 years lease.
Is the Minister aware that a normal port and tonnage due charged on the oil passing through that port would get revenue for us which could be used in that port, and in others if that port did not need it, of over £1 million a year?
That is in respect of the lease of the foreshore to the company concerned. Dues are collected by harbour authorities in respect of installations which they have provided. The installations, in this case, at a cost of £10 million, have been provided by the company themselves.
Dues are surely collected also by harbour authorities in respect of facilities which are there, naturally, which exist in Whiddy Island in Bantry Bay.
The Deputy is under a misconception.
No, the Deputy is under no misconception.
Rent is obtained by the State under the Foreshore Act in respect of foreshore land leased to the company. Harbour dues are collected by harbour authorities in respect of installations, terminals and facilities provided and offered by such harbour authorities. The Deputy should do his homework now.
Does the Minister not agree that harbour authorities collect dues in respect of natural facilities and amenities that exist in the harbour, as well as the facilities which they create? Of course, they do.
No. The Deputy should do his homework. There is a clear distinction between the two aspects I am talking about. If the Deputy would cease talking his head off and think about what I am saying——
Do not mind the Deputy. Talk about the subject.
I am talking about the subject.
Further arising from the Minister's reply, I want to know if it is a fact that every harbour in this country exists only on the basis of facilities that were created by man —that the facilities created by God are something we cannot enjoy.
I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.
We should get £1 million a year in harbour dues for a facility that is available nowhere else in the world.
At the risk of repeating myself, may I say that harbour dues in every country in the world, including Ireland, are in respect of facilities and installations provided by a harbour authority for the benefit of firms using that particular harbour area and dues are collected in respect of such usage? In this case, all the harbour facilities were provided by the company concerned at a cost of £10 million. What we are talking about, in terms of a rent, is rent in respect of virgin land under the Foreshore Act which was made available to this company.
Deputy Barry Desmond.
Nobody particularly disputes that this company has invested £10 million of its money and now owns its property on the foreshore such as the tank installations and the general infrastructure of the harbour. Nobody resents the fact that 47 people are employed on this particular——
147.
Will the Deputy please ask a supplementary question?
I shall come to it. The figure is now 100. These are self-evident facts. The question put to the Minister is simply whether he considers it wise that the State should have entered into a 99 year lease for the use of the foreshore lands of Bantry Bay and the virtually exclusive access to one of the finest natural harbours of the country by a major international oil company for the peanuts price of £7,000 per annum. I simply suggest to the Minister that the Government have made an error of strategy in terms of price. While I appreciate the serious anxiety, at the point of time, of the Government who wanted to get Gulf Oil to come to Bantry Bay—they might go elsewhere—nevertheless, the agreement as it now stands is that, for £7,000 a year, the price of a new house a year, an international company has an international maritime harbour, one of the finest in the world. This is a serious situation.
I want to put the whole matter into perspective. There is no exclusive right involved. Bantry Bay is quite an enormous harbour. Whiddy Island is a very small part—a matter of 100 acres involved. One of the facts of economic life is that you cannot have your cake and eat it. I have a subsequent question for reply here asking me to try to arrange for something similar in the Shannon estuary. We simply cannot have our cake and eat it.
Question No. 75.
Would the Minister not agree that the lease should, in fact, now be revised? Gulf Oil owns the harbour installations themselves. For that ownership, they are paying £7,000 a year. Would the Minister not feel that something in the region of, I would make it, £700,000 virtually a year, if they had to; I do not want unduly to flog the question——
This is developing into a debate.
A very constructive supplementary question is being put here.
If the Minister invested £10 million of taxpayers' money, and built it for Gulf Oil, he would charge them not less than £1 million a year. Gulf Oil own the place and you are charging £7,000 for the land and the use of the harbour——
The most practical way to approach the problem, in my view, is to seek further industrial investment in that area. At present, I am having discussions with Gulf Oil on this aspect. This is the practical, constructive way to approach the matter rather than to talk about a matter that is past and in which I think we got excellent value. We should now bend our minds to getting better value out of the arrangement in the future.
Next question. I am calling Question No. 75.
75.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power the methods used by a firm (name supplied) in cleansing oil spillings at Bantry Bay; and if he has any proposals to control the indiscriminate use of detergents for such purposes, in the interest of preserving marine life off Bantry and the south-west coast generally.
76.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power what arrangements exist or are proposed to control pollution arising from oil spillings or smoke in the Whiddy Island-Bantry area.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 75 and 76 together.
In the first place, I should refer the Deputy to the very detailed statement on the subject of oil pollution circulated with the Official Report of my predecessor's reply to Question No. 18 of the 19th November, 1968. As the statement points out, the main danger of oil pollution of our coasts arises from the tanker traffic on the busy shipping routes which pass our shores. The additional traffic generated by the Whiddy Terminal constitutes only a relatively small addition to the total volume of oil thus transported. The most stringent safety precautions based on the most modern and sophisticated methods and equipment are provided at the terminal and are kept under constant review in consultation with Gulf Oil by the technical officers of my Department. Since the leakage of oil which occurred at Christmas 1968, before the prescribed anti-pollution measures had been fully implemented, and in respect of which the company was prosecuted and fined, only a few minor oil spillages have occurred at the terminal. They were dealt with satisfactorily.
The cleaning methods used included the use of detergents to disperse such oil as could not be skimmed from the surface of the water; only the limited amounts necessary for the purpose were used. There is, at present, no satisfactory alternative to the use of detergents for this purpose but my Department is keeping in touch with research and developments abroad in this field. I do not consider that there is any need, at present, for special measures to control the use of detergents at Whiddy Island.
I may add that the Fisheries Division of the Department of Agriculture keep a close watch on the operations at Whiddy Island, including the use of detergents, and they have advised me that no persisting damage to marine life in Bantry Bay has occurred from oil pollution or the use of detergents.
I am advised that the emission of smoke by vessels using the terminal is negligible and not a source of pollution.
Surely the Minister is aware while no persistent destruction of marine life may have occurred that periodic destruction of marine life did occur and many tons of fish which could have been caught by fishermen in that area were killed by the use of those detergents?
I happened to be Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Fisheries at one time and I know the technical staff there are very concerned about the preservation of marine life and are very persistent in following up allegations of that kind, that marine life is being damaged. I have reports from them to the effect that there is no problem here.
The Minister may be informed there is a problem.
I will bring the Deputy's observations to their notice.