Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995

Vol. 457 No. 8

Harbours Bill, 1995: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.

We resume on amendment No. 26 in respect of which the Bill has been recommitted:

In page 38, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:

"(9) Where the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the company and trustees concerned, that —

(a) a fund established by a company under paragraph (a) or (c) of subsection (3) or continued in existence in relation to it by virtue of subsection (1) (c) (ii) does not comprise sufficient moneys as will enable the payment from that fund of superanuation benefits, under the scheme or schemes concerned as and when those benefits fall due for payment, and

(b) the said company does not have resources from which there could be paid the said benefits as and when they fall due for payment.

then the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, pay to the trustees concerned such amount in respect of liabilities of the said schemes or schemes that have arisen prior to the relevant vesting day as he or she may determine.".

—(Minister of State at the Department of the Marine.)

This amendment provides that the Minister for the Marine may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, pay to the trustees of certain pension schemes moneys in respect of certain liabilities that have arisen prior to the relevant vesting day. This provision applies only to port companies to be established under this Bill.

On Committee Stage I touched briefly on the pension liabilities of harbour authorities. Historically, they operated a "pay as you go" system for pensions rather than having a specific pensions fund. This system is no longer in accord with acceptable standards. Under the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1990, and this Bill harbour authorities must build up pension funds. This is a costly process and while some authorities are in the process of building up a fund others are only beginning to do so now and it will take some time for them to put fully funded funds in place. In particular, the Dublin Port and Waterford Harbour authorities have serious shortfalls in their pension funds.

The Government is taking action to secure pensions and to ensure that harbour authorities build up the necessary funds. Consultants have been employed to conduct a comprehensive study of the financial status of harbour authorities, including the long-term funding requirements of the ports and how these are to be achieved taking due account of measures to meet the appropriate funding standards for pension schemes under the Pensions Act. I expect that this study will be available shortly.

If it is found that some harbour authorities cannot build up the required funds within the timescale set out in the Pensions Act it will be necessary to remove from the scope of Part IV of that Act those pension schemes or parts thereof which do not meet the required funding standard. The purpose of this amendment is to allow for this. The effect of removing pension schemes from the scope of the Pensions Act is that such schemes will avail of Exchequer cover. In the unlikely event that port companies cannot meet their pension obligations the State will undertake to do so.

This provision will also allow for the payment of moneys by the Exchequer into a pension fund to build it up. This is an enabling provision and will only be invoked in the direst of circumstances where the Minister for the Marine and the Minister for Finance are satisfied that an Exchequer contribution towards a pension fund at a port company is necessary. Any such contribution will be made only on foot of a plan agreed by the Minister for the Marine and the Minister for Finance with the company and the trustees of the pension scheme which provides for building up the pension fund over a specified period.

The policy will be to minimise the Exchequer exposure in this regard through ensuring that every effort is made by harbour authorities and port companies to provide for the funding of pre-vesting day pension liabilities themselves. The purpose of this amendment is only to provide a back stop guarantee against the eventuality that certain harbours may be unable, through trading performance or closure, to meet their pension liabilities. Exchequer intervention will occur only in the direst circumstances.

Harbour authorities will be expected to make every effort to fund all pension liabilities through improved trading, asset sales, etc. The boards will be required to provide in their strategic plans for a mechanism by which funds may be built up to meet the required funding standard under the Pensions Act. The Exchequer's back stop guarantee will operate only until such time as the boards can reasonably attain that status.

There will be a stringent case by case approach. For example, not withstanding the text of the amendment, there will be no question that certain categories of liabilities, such as pre-vesting day liabilities, will be automatically Exchequer funded for all bodies.

The intention is that when the study which has been commissioned into the current and prospective viability of harbour authorities is completed I will consider further, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance and the harbour authorities, how best to put the necessary measures in place to enable the pension schemes to meet the required funding standards under the Pensions Act. The DKM study is now almost completed and the consultant's report and recommendations should be available shortly.

Amendment No. 27 provides that moneys required by the Minister for the Marine or the Minister for Finance under this section "shall be advanced out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof". In this regard moneys will be required by the Minister for Finance to enable him to meet his obligations under subsection (5) and moneys may be required by the Minister for the Marine in accordance with the new subsection (9).

The purpose of amendment No. 62 is to provide that, in respect of harbour authorities which remain under the Harbours Act, 1946, moneys may be made available by way of grants or loans to cover pension liabilities in respect of pension schemes made in accordance with section 151 of that Act where the harbour authorities concerned do not have the resources to cover such payments. The Harbours Act, 1946, does not make provision for the payment of State grant assistance to harbour authorities towards pension costs. This provision will provide emergency cover for pensioners where a harbour authority cannot pay pensions out of its own resources. It covers the authorities at small harbours where one or two persons only are employed.

The intention is that the section will remain in force for a period of not more than five years after the commencement date of the section and that moneys, if any, made available will be in respect of a period of 12 months only after which time the matter will be reviewed.

The ultimate aim of these amendments is to ensure that existing harbour pensioners and the employees of harbour companies and commissioners will have their pension entitlements honoured in full and, if necessary, the Exchequer will provide the necessary finance to achieve this. The primary responsibility for ensuring that pension funds are adequate for this purpose will continue to rest with the individual harbour companies and commissioners.

I welcome these new provisions which were promised by the Minister of State on Committee Stage. It is extremely important that the Exchequer is not exposed to unnecessary payments in this area.

Having examined the matter briefly it seems that different schemes were introduced. It may well be the case that certain harbour boards took their responsibilities more seriously than others. The resources devoted to these schemes could, perhaps, have been used to fund developmental projects, but in their wisdom they decided to ensure that their employees were fully protected under the law. That did not apply in all circumstances. However, the Minister has two distinct responsibilities in this regard. First, he must ensure that people who are employed are fully protected and that commercial companies discharge their responsibilities in this regard to the ultimate limit. Second, he must at the same time give an assurance or legal guarantee that, when all other avenues are explored and everything possible has been done by the company but a balance must still be made up to protect the employees' pension and other rights, the State will, in that ultimate circumstance, take up the cudgels. The provision as drafted and the Minister's statement to the House indicate that this safeguard exists but will only be used in exceptional circumstances, so the obligation on the commercial companies to discharge their responsibilities in this regard will be enforced as far as possible. On that basis I agree to the amendment.

On the previous day I spoke on this section and asked the Minister about the position of pilots. Has he had time to examine it since? I want to ensure in the context of this amendment that pilots, who have been part of harbour authorities for many years and given valuable service, are also protected. Does he consider this provision applies to pilots as much as to others, given what harbour authorities were involved in heretofore?

Two questions have been raised. The first was from Deputy Smith, whom I thank for his support for the amendments. There was some concern among pensioners and employees of harbour companies that there might be some risk to their pension entitlements — comments to that effect were made in news reports. I wish to put those concerns to rest. The pension entitlements of ports pensioners and existing employees are being guaranteed and the purpose of these amendments is to underwrite that in legislation. However, that does not confer on the harbour companies or the harbour commissioners a blank cheque or a soft option in making provision for their pensioners. The primary responsibility in the matter will continue to rest with the companies and the commissioners to provide for the pension funds from their resources. To assist in that process, we have commissioned a study by DKM to examine the extent of pension liabilities and the ability and assets available to pension companies to discharge them.

The second question was also raised by Deputy Cullen on the last occasion and I apologise for not responding to it in my earlier comment. The amendment applies only to pre-vesting day employees of harbours. Pilots in most cases are not employees under law, they are self-employed and therefore are not covered by the amendment. By virtue of their self-employed status their pension arrangements are separate from those made for employees of the companies. The position at present is that pilots make their own pension arrangements as self-employed people.

That may nominally be the case but the pensions of pilots who have already retired are being paid by the existing harbour authorities. Although technically they would have been expected to have made private pension arrangements, I understand that is not the case. Those who are already receiving pensions are in the same system as other harbour authority employees. It will cause problems if people who were pilots will now have no guarantees as to their pensions. The Minister is technically correct — the pilots are self-employed for specific reasons — but practically they are direct employees of the harbour authorities.

I am concerned about his reply because this could seriously affect those about to retire, those currently receiving pensions and those who have given long service in cases where there is no pension fund to meet their requirements. I am worried about their futures because they have given long service and their duties are integral and essential to the business of the harbours. I am not happy with the reply; although it was technically correct, the practical aspect is different.

To make this clear to Deputy Cullen, the legislation will not disadvantage pilots in their pension entitlements, which will continue to operate. I appreciate what the Deputy said about the technicalities of the person being self-employed or an employee. The pensions of pilots are not paid from harbour revenue but from pilotage authority revenue. Where existing arrangements are in place for pilots' pensions those will continue. As the Deputy knows, two options are provided for in the legislation concerning pilots. The first is a licensed pilotage, which is analogous to the self-employed status enjoyed by many pilots at present. Alternatively, there is the option of direct employment of pilots by harbour companies, in which case they would enjoy the conditions attaching to employees of harbour companies.

I was going to come to that point; if they take up the option of regularising their position to become employees of the new companies, they are covered under this section. Is that correct?

Yes. If the option of becoming an employee of the company is exercised, a pilot will enjoy the conditions of company employees and consequently will have pension protection. In practice, where any such transfer from employee to licensed arrangement or vice versa is concerned, there must be negotiation and discussion between the parties involved. Such discussions must deal with pension entitlements because if a pilot had operated on a licensed basis, had a pension scheme other than a direct scheme with the harbour company and wished to transfer into the company scheme, various issues would have to be sorted out in relation to the transfer of previous pension rights and entitlements. The principle which will apply is that they will have the conditions and rights of employees but if they are self-employed and licensed, separate arrangements are made.

The Minister has clarified the point to an extent. Some very interesting aspects arose from our previous discussion on this issue. Cork Harbour Commissioners have a sizeable fund to provide for the pension rights of pilots whereas the funds to provide for pension rights in the other three main ports, Dublin, Limerick and Waterford, are depleted and in two cases they are virtually non-existent. The Minister said that nobody would be deprived of their pension rights. Will the staff in Waterford port have problems with their pension rights or will the new companies cater for them? Will all pilots be eligible to join the pension schemes which the new companies will operate?

I have a similar question. Based on the figures of pension liabilities that are not currently being met, is the Minister in a position to say or even make a rough guess at the potential figure that will be required from the Exchequer in the next year or two to meet the pension liabilities, particularly in the ports to which Deputy Deasy referred?

I will deal with Deputy Michael Smith's question first. I do not expect there will be a liability and that was the whole purpose of the comments I made earlier. The provision in the Bill is to deal with the worst case where harbour companies go bust and cannot meet their pension liabilities. The State will guarantee the pensions of the pensioners and the employees. The first priority is to ensure that pensioners and employees have guaranteed pension entitlements but the responsibility for ensuring that rests with the harbour companies. The harbour companies will have to look to their own resources, to their trading position, their commercial future and to their assets to provide that the pension liabilities are met from the pension fund. To assist in that process we have commissioned through DKM a study of the various harbours to get a more accurate picture of the pension liabilities, the future prospects and the ability of the respective harbour companies to establish pension funds.

I stress that the responsibility falls on the individual harbour companies. Provision is not being made in the Bill to provide a vehicle whereby harbour companies can come back to the Exchequer in a year or two and say they need money for the pension fund. The harbour companies in the first instance will have to provide for the pension funds and only in dire circumstances will the Exchequer be called upon. I was asked if the Exchequer would be faced with a liability in the next year or two but I do not expect that will be the case. I expect that companies will have to address the very difficult task of building up pension funds. I hope to some extent that answers part of Deputy Deasy's question because it relates not only to pilots but to harbour employees in general. Section 96 which relates to the transfer of rights and responsibilities will protect the pension rights of pilots where their pensions are being paid out of pilotage authority revenue.

The Minister mentioned that in the event of the harbour companies going bust the Department would look after the rights of their employees. Will the Minister give an assurance that in such an event that would be the case? We all remember a company that was engaged directly and indirectly in the marine that got into financial difficulties and their former employees were at the gate of Leinster House for years until the matter was resolved a short time ago. I would not like to see a port authority going bust but if that were to happen I would like to be assured that the workers would be dealt with immediately.

The Minister has been very helpful on this issue. I thought I heard the Minister say that pensions paid to pilots is a separate issue but I understand their pensions are paid from current revenue and this is important in the overall context of the income to harbour authorities. The situation may be different in each harbour area. Even though they are separate, effectively they are treated as employees and their pensions are paid from current revenue. I am not condoning it but that is the practice.

I do not expect that the harbour companies will go out of business. The whole purpose of this legislation is to provide for the commerciality of the harbour ports.

The Minister does not want to be responsible for it.

The prospects for harbour companies are bright. Trade is increasing in all harbour companies. Prospects for increased trade are substantial. There is considerable growth prospect both through the growth of the economy and the possibility of winning back sea trade that is going across the Border through Northern ports. Their commercial future looks bright and it is on that basis they are being set up as commercial semi-State companies. I have no doubt that when they have that status they will have the capacity and ability to trade more effectively and profitably. The doomsday scenario we are trying to protect against in the legislation will, we hope, not arise.

What we are providing in the Bill is a guarantee that, should unforeseen difficulties arise or the worst come to the worst, ultimately pensioners and employees of these harbour companies will receive their pensions. At the same time, by no stretch of the imagination are we absolving those harbour companies of their primary responsibility to provide these pension funds from their own resources.

In reply to Deputy Cullen, the position with regard to the payment of pilots' pensions is that they are paid from the pilotage revenue as distinct from the pilotage revenue as distinct from the harbour revenue.

It is still part of the overall revenue.

The continuation of their pension rights is protected in the Bill.

The Minister of State should not be too sure about harbour companies not going out of business. I remember a ship that berthed in Dungarvan Harbour some years ago, landed on a mud bank and broke its back. Since at that time urban councils were the local harbour boards — but were not so designated under the 1946 Act — when its owners lodged a claim against the harbour board the urban council was held to be the relevant authority. Were it not for ratepayers and the Department of the Environment that urban council would have been bankrupt. The Minister of State should not be too sure that a £50 million ship will not come into Waterford, Foynes or Limerick and be damaged, thus placing severe financial pressure on a harbour company. That is a possible eventuality.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 27.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 38, to delete lines 38 to 40, and substitute the following:

"(9) All money from time to time required by the Minister or the Minister for Finance to meet sums which are, or may become, payable by him or her under this section shall be advanced out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 40, line 28, to delete "or".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 40, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

"(d) the acquisition or disposal of lands by a company or companies (including by way of the grant of a lease), or".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 31 in the name of Deputy Browne is deemed to be out of order.

(Wexford): Why has it been ruled out of order? Did the Minister rule it out of order?

Acting Chairman

I understand it would involve a potential charge on Revenue.

Amendment No. 31 not moved.

Acting Chairman

We come to amendment No. 31a. I observe that amendment No. 32 is related and amendment No. 33 is an alternative. Therefore, I suggest that we discuss these three amendments together.

I move amendment No. 31a:

In page 42, line 16, after "time" to insert "(including a time which is prior to the arrival of the ship within the harbour)".

Essentially I am accepting the thrust of Deputy Molloy's amendments but, for a variety of technical reasons, the parliamentary draftsman felt they needed to be reworded. Section 48 (1) (a) as it stands reads:

The harbour master of a harbour may at any time require the master of a ship which is within the harbour to give to him or her a statement of the draught of the ship.

Amendment agreed to.

; I move amendment No. 32:

In page 42, lines 17 and 18, to delete "which is within the harbour".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.

Acting Chairman

I observe that amendment No. 35 is consequential on amendment No. 34, amendment No. 36 is related and amendments Nos. 37 to 44, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 36. Therefore it is proposed that we take amendments Nos. 34 to 44, inclusive, together, by agreement. Agreed.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 43, lines 27 and 28, to delete "The Harbour Master may refuse entry into its harbour" and substitute "The harbour master of a harbour may refuse entry into the harbour".

On Committee Stage Deputy Molloy tabled an amendment which conferred on the harbour master, rather than on the company, power to refuse entry to a harbour of ships, vehicles or other conveyances carrying nuclear material or other dangerous substances. As the harbour master is the officer on the ground, I consider this amendment to be reasonable and I am accepting it. I pointed out it would give rise to consequential amendments to the section. It was agreed that these would be brought forward on Report Stage. Amendment No. 34 is based on Deputy Molloy's amendment and amendments Nos. 35 to 44, inclusive, are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 43, line 31, to delete "its" and substitute "his or her".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 43, line 40, to delete "A company" and substitute "The harbour master of a harbour".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 43, line 41, to delete "its", where it firstly occurs, and substitute "the".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 43, line 41, to delete "its" where it secondly occurs, and substitute "the".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 43, line 42, to delete "its" substitute "the".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 43, line 43, to delete "company" and substitute "harbour master".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 44, line 1, to delete "company concerned" and substitute "harbour master of the harbour".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 44, line 3, to delete "its" and substitute "the".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 44, line 7, to delete "concerned" and substitute "whose harbour the notice aforesaid relates to".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 44, line 8, to delete "the" and substitute "that".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 47, line 38, to delete "that" and substitute "in respect of which".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 48, line 34, to delete "that" and substitute "in respect of which".

Amendment agreed to.

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 47:

In page 51, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"(2) Pilotage shall not be compulsory for a ship which is proceeding to or from a pilotage district to which access is only possible by passing through the pilotage district of another company.".

This amendment is not designed to cause conflict with Waterford. It is imperative this Bill ensures that, when established, port companies are free to operate commercially without their competitiveness being affected by another port authority with jurisdiction for part of the river leading to the other port. Problems exist between Waterford and New Ross and this is the means to iron them out. It is important the Minister takes on board some of my suggestions.

At present pilotage is compulsory for inbound vessels to Waterford estuary. In many cases ships proceed to Ballyhack-Passage East before embarking a pilot. This practice is especially prevalent in poor weather which prevents pilots boarding at Dunmore East. Pilotage onwards from Ballyhack-Passage East is not compulsory.

I suggest pilotage should be optional for vessels of less than 8,000 tonnes dead-weight from Dunmore East to Ballyhack-Passage East. Current practice indicates that compulsory pilotage in this area for ships of a certain size is unnecessary. I also suggest that the New Ross pilots should board at Ballyhack-Passage East and proceed through the Barrow Bridge to New Ross. This would improve safety by giving the New Ross pilot a chance to become familiar with the handling characteristics of the ship before crossing the Barrow Bridge which is the most challenging area of navigation in the entire passage. The current position is not satisfactory whereby the New Ross pilot boards at Cheekpoint as the ship approaches the bridge.

On Committee Stage the Minister talked about safety and Deputy Deasy also emphasised the need for safety on Second Stage. Safety is a major aspect of my suggestions. My recommendations will improve the cost efficiency of the service without compromising safety. I ask the Minister to consider seriously setting up a review group to examine the pilotage operations in the estuary which would examine costs, safety, pilotage exemption certificates, logistics, jurisdiction, and all other matters related to the estuary. The Minister has examined Foynes-Limerick in this way and should similarly examine New Ross-Waterford.

Rather than have New Ross and Waterford at loggerheads the Minister should put in place a review group and under sections 43, 79 and 80 he would have the power to implement its findings and recommendations without further legislation. The findings of a review group which would be in the interests of Waterford and New Ross ports should be implemented as quickly as possible.

I strenuously oppose this amendment. It is highly dangerous to contemplate it. The stretch of water from Dunmore East to Cheekpoint is exceptionally tricky and requires expert knowledge. It is not acceptable to allow a skipper who has never travelled the channel to take a chance. It would result eventually in a large ship going aground, blocking the harbour and causing chaos. It is against maritime law to allow a ship to negotiate a hazardous stretch of water without a pilot aboard. Pilotage is a basic concept of the law of the sea.

Under no circumstances can this amendment be entertained. It would involve a financial saving for New Ross harbour commissioners but the safety element will have to be accepted. The alternative is far too dangerous and, therefore, unacceptable.

Given that I spoke at length on this issue on Committee Stage it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am not in agreement with my colleague on this issue. I understand why he wants to put forward the issue but I do not agree with his arguments. The stretch of water involved needs expert pilotage.

The issue of inshore rescue is of concern with regard to the Suir Estuary due to the substantial increase of use of the river and I hope the Minister will deal with the matter. In addition to bulk cargo ships, there has been an increase in recreational use of the estuary and there are also inshore fishermen working there. All of these vessels should be active in the estuary to maximise employment in the area but that puts a responsibility on Waterford harbour authority to ensure safety is the foremost consideration.

Within the last couple of weeks a ship sailed from Dunmore East without permission from the pilotage authority and would not make contact with the pilots or the harbour authority on the open frequency, and it went aground. Fortunately, no serious accident ensued. However, a ship with a cargo of oil, for example, could break its back and cause a major spillage which would impact on the shellfish beds and the other activities in the Suir Estuary, not to mention the damage to shipping and the potential loss of life.

Such factors are a commercial reality. A commercial injustice is not being done to New Ross in this regard. These are costs every legitimate company or industry must bear in carrying out its business. I had thought the Minister indicated on Committee Stage that he would discuss the matter with the relevant people in New Ross and Waterford. He cited the example of the Shannon where one authority was made responsible for the pilotage. If New Ross feels it is too cumbersome to have two pilotage areas I am sure the Waterford harbour authority might take over the pilotage for the New Ross area.

That is very generous.

That may have the added benefit of achieving two ends. Deputy Browne mentioned the difficulty of boarding some ships although with the experience of the pilots I doubt it is that difficult. Perhaps the whole area should be one for pilotage purposes and given that Waterford is one of the premier ports in Europe I am sure the harbour authorities would be happy to take on the task.

I do not wish to be facetious in making the proposal; I consider it logical. In reponse to what I said the Minister mentioned that possibility. If New Ross wishes to remain on its own that is fine, but the question of removing pilotage from Dunmore East to the Barrow Bridge cannot arise. That would be lunacy and a retrograde step.

There should not be any argument between the two active and growing ports of New Ross and Waterford. I commend Deputies from Waterford for making a case for the pilots who stand to lose substantially if changes are made but they should not mention the issue of safety just for the sake of it.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for commercial ports. Waterford and New Ross ports are commercially oriented and competition between them will increase when the new port companies are set up. In 1994, New Ross port had a turnover of 1.2 million tonnes and 560 ships entered it. The estuary is 20 miles long. A ship bound for New Ross must take on a pilot at Dunmore and them must disembark that pilot and take on another at Cheekpoint.

I live on the Wexford shore over-looking Dollar Bay and it is with some amazement that people ask how Waterford Harbour Commissioners control the whole estuary. The cost of entry of ships to New Ross will be determined by a new port company or harbour commissioners. If what is proposed in the Bill is implemented, Waterford port company will decide the level of pilotage charges and light dues for ships bound for New Ross. We have paid out a lot of money but we have expressed satisfaction——

New Ross is treated very well.

As competition becomes keener it is inappropriate for another port company to determine our costs. For example, if both ports wish a ship to attend its port and the costs are higher at one port than they are at the other, the ship will attend the port with the lower costs. It will not go to New Ross port just because it is a beautiful town on a beautiful river. A commercial decision will be made.

There are six buoys and eight shore lights from the Hook to Cheekpoint. From Checkpoint to Waterford port there are six buoys and nine shore lights. It is amazing that ships bound for New Ross pay for the use of all of them even though they do not enter from Cheekpoint to the Waterford port area. It is estimated that we in New Ross pay £45,000 per annum in light dues and that the maintenance cost to Waterford Harbour Commissioners is £15,000. Deputy Cullen made a generous offer earlier but we too are generous. Although it is a serious matter we are still in a position to compete.

A ship bound for New Ross or Waterford would normally take a pilot on board at Dunmore. When they go further up river the Waterford pilot disembarks at Cheekpoint and a New Ross pilot embarks. Although it may seem complicated, the bottom line is we pay double charges. It is lovely to see a new coalition in Waterford.

Deputy Cullen was not too far away from full integration a short time ago.

Not true.

The Deputy can answer that himself.

(Wexford): Did Deputy Deasy put the boot in?

It is no surprise that Deputy Cullen joined the better party.

He tossed between them.

If weather conditions are bad a pilot will not board a ship at Dunmore East. The ship will go up river and take a pilot on board in the stiller waters at Passage. I cross the ferry from Ballyhack to Passage quite often and I know that happens.

The Marnam, a 1,600 tonne ship, arrived at the Hook on the morning of the 16th. It was bound for New Ross and requested a pilot from Dunmore. It was told to wait one and a half hours because of bad weather conditions and the unavailability of a pilot. The master of that ship, like many another, steamed up river hoping to make the tide. He followed the Merlake which was piloted. In estuaries it is quite common for ships without a pilot to follow ships which are piloted. The tide did not oblige the Marnam and the master dropped anchor. When the tide went out she was grounded. She refloated on the following tide without any damage.

We would do well to investigate the arrival of the Pyrgos on 16 October 1995. She berthed on 19 October. I will not go into the details but anyone who is concerned with safety should look at that.

We in New Ross are concerned that the port remain commercial and do not want another port company determining costs to our disadvantage. That would be possible if another port decides such costs.

In New Ross we have commissioned an independent person from Trinity House to examine the estuary which is navigated in bad weather from Dunmore East to Passage East by all masters. It is strange then that in good weather a pilot has to board at Dunmore East. This merits investigation.

The Bill is a good one. Its purpose is commerciality for ports. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment tabled by my constituency colleague, Deputy Browne, to make sure we are all on a level playing pitch.

I would not support this amendment because of the safety aspect but on the issue of commerciality I empathise with the Deputy because a similar situation applies to Foynes.

Who is the piloting authority?

It is the Limerick authority. As I said, we have a similar situation.

The estuary flows inland. That is the problem.

Commerciality is an issue in my area also. The Harbours Bill puts harbours on a commercial basis as independent entities. A pilotage district could put a port dependent on it for pilotage at a disadvantage but the Minister's amendment No. 56 gives protection in such a situation. If the Minister or the officials felt the port was being blackguarded in this way they would invoke amendment No. 56 to ensure it did not happen.

I would be concerned about ships proceeding without the benefit of a pilot from the point of view of safety.

We are very concerned about safety. The Deputy should not try to put it across that we are not concerned about safety.

I listened for quite some time to the previous speaker and I am sure he will extend the same courtesy to me. If he gives me a chance to qualify what I said, I will expand on what I mean by safety. Shipping is so commercial nowadays that captains come from every country. In many cases they have not totally mastered the English language. It may be their first trip to an estuary and they may be confused and need the assistance of pilots to navigate the channels. I could not support this amendment on that basis. The Minister offers protection within section 56 to ports that might be at a disadvantage because they do not employ their own pilot.

They say blood is thicker than water. It would appear that county loyalty is thicker than political loyalty, at least on the opposite side of the House.

The amendment proposed by Deputy Browne asks that pilotage should not be compulsory for a ship proceeding to or from a pilotage district to which access is only possible by passing through the pilotage district of another company. On Committee Stage Deputy Hugh Byrne raised the question of compulsory pilotage in the Waterford pilotage district for ships travelling to New Ross. Since then I have had this matter investigated. There is a total of 1,100 ship movements being piloted to and from New Ross each year and 1,600 to and from Waterford Harbour. With that degree of traffic in the estuary, compulsory pilotage is necessary in the interests of safety for all ships from Dunmore East to Cheek Point where the New Ross pilots take over. For that reason I cannot accept Deputy Byrne's amendment.

Having said that, I would point out that pilot exemption certificates may become more common once the new legislation is in place. Persons in charge of ships travelling to New Ross on a regular basis will be able to apply for such certificates in respect of the Waterford pilotage district if they so desire and if they satisfy the conditions laid down in section 72, thus cutting overall shipping costs. New Ross Harbour Commissioners have forwarded another proposal to me concerning pilotage in the Waterford estuary. In the light of these new proposals both Waterford and New Ross Harbour Commissioners were invited to roundtable talks at the Department of the Marine last Monday, 6 November. At this meeting it was agreed that a review of the pilotage operation in that estuary would be undertaken with a view to solving the impasse between Waterford and New Ross.

It was further agreed that a review group would be set up by the Department of the Marine to examine the pilotage issues in detail. The group will comprise one nominee from Waterford Harbour Commissioners, one nominee from New Ross Harbour Commissioners, one official of the Department of the Marine and one independent member with the necessary technical expertise to be nominated by the Department of the Marine and agreed by both sides. The terms of reference of the group will be drawn up by the Department and it was agreed that the group would be requested to concentrate on the cost effectiveness of existing pilotage and any new operations proposed, including safety, management, logistics, jurisdiction, pilotage exemption certificates and their effects under the new legislation, and comparison with relevant situations elsewhere in the EU. It was agreed that the group would convene as soon as possible with a view to the Department receiving the group's recommendations within three months.

The Bill, as drafted, will enable any of the review group's recommendations to be implemented. Section 79, for example, provides for the redefining of pilotage limits and section 43 allows for the amalgamation of interests provided the companies concerned are in agreement.

I also want to refer to amendment No. 56 which is in my name and which, I understand, is being taken with this amendment. Concern was expressed on Committee Stage, and again today, that Waterford might use its position to impose excessive pilotage charges on New Ross and thereby put New Ross at a competitive disadvantage. A similar situation will arise in the case of Foynes and the Shannon estuary or the Limerick Port company where Limerick is the pilotage authority for Foynes. It could also arise in Dublin Bay where Dublin Port is the pilotage authority for Dun Laoghaire. My amendment is to provide a safety net to cover situations like those. If, after vesting day, a company impose exorbitant pilotage charges, the Minister will have the power to intervene and ensure that competition is not distorted. I should add that a similar provision exists in section 44 regarding general harbour charges.

In view of what I have said on the establishment of the review group and the amendment which will allow the Minister to intervene where one company uses its pilotage position to make exorbitant charges, I ask Deputy Browne to withdraw his amendment.

(Wexford): I thank the Minister and his officials for proposing to establish a review group to report on Waterford and New Ross ports. My purpose in tabling the amendment was to give the House an opportunity to debate the matter. We are pleased with the Minister's proposal and I hope, following the recommendations of the review group, the difficulties between Waterford and New Ross ports will be resolved.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 60, line 13, after "may" to insert "be".

This is a minor amendment to correct the omission of the word "be" in the phrase "as soon as may be" in line 13 of page 60.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 50 to 53, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 64, lines 30 and 31, to delete "a master or first mate" and substitute "other person".

A number of similar amendments were made on Committee Stage. The purpose of the Committee Stage amendments was to provide that pilotage exemption certificates could be granted to a bona fide person acting as the person in charge of a ship as opposed to the master or first mate. As a consequence the phrase "master or first mate" was deleted from a number of sections of the Bill on Committe Stage. It was pointed out to me by a number of harbour authorities and the Irish Port Authorities Association that the phrase "first mate" had been replaced by "chief officer" and that the term "chief officer" could be replaced by another title in the near future. The amendment before the House is consequential to the Committee Stage amendments and corrects the omission made on Committee Stage.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 55 not moved.

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 67, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(2) The Minister may, after consultation with the company, give a direction in writing to a company requiring it to comply with policy decisions of a general kind made by the Minister in relation to the levels of pilotage charges imposed by a company or companies and the company shall comply with any such direction.".

Amendment agreed to.

Carlow-Kilkenny): As amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60 are related, they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 68, line 24, after "construed as" to insert "including".

These are drafting amendments suggested by the parliamentary draftsman and are designed to cater for harbours — such as those listed in the table in section 87(2) — that are not set up as commercial state companies or may not be transferred to local authorities but may continue to operate under the Harbours Act 1946. Section 83 deals with the adaptation of references in enactments to harbour authorities and pilotage authorities and covers all three possible scenarios in regard to the future status of harbours, harbours that may be established as commercial state companies, harbours that may be transferred to local authorities and harbours that may continue to operate under the Harbours Act, 1946.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 68, line 31, after "company" to insert "(if any)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 68, line 32, after "authority" to insert "(if any)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 68, line 36, after "construed as" to insert "including".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 73, line 22, after "may" to insert ",after consultation with the local authority concerned,".

This amendment is proposed at the request of Deputy Molloy who expressed concern on Committee Stage that the Minister for the Marine might define limits for a harbour under the control of a county council without consulting the relevant local authority. This amendment will ensure this will not happen and that consultation must take place with the local authority concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 75, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

95. — (1) Where the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the harbour authority and the trustees (if any) concerned, that as respects a superannuation scheme made by a harbour authority under section 151 of the Act of 1946——

(a) the fund (if any) established in respect of the scheme does not comprise sufficient moneys as will enable the payment therefrom of superannuation benefits under the scheme that fall due for payment within the period of 12 months following any particular date, and

(b) the said harbour authority do not have resources from which there could be paid the said benefits,

then the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make available to the said harbour authority or, as the case may be, the trustees of a fund aforesaid, such amount of moneys (whether by way of grants or loans) as he or she may determine for the purpose of enabling the payment of the said benefits.

(2) No moneys shall be made available under subsection (1) more than 5 years after the commencement of this section.

(3) All money from time to time required by the Minister to meet sums which may become payable by him or her under this section shall be advanced out of the Central Fund or the growing produce therof.

Amendment agreed to.

(Wexford): I move amendment No. 63:

In page 82, to delete lines 22 to 26 and substitute the following:

"7. Limits consisting of the Harbour Works and the land vested in Foynes Port Company from time to time together with the waters and foreshore of the sea and River Shannon lying within the boundaries of County of Limerick, between the meridians 90-5i West of Greenwich passing through the mouth of Robertstown River, and 9-12i West of Greenwich passing through the mouth of the White River at Loghill.".

Will the Minister publish the interim and final reports of the mediator appointed to report on Foynes and Limerick harbours? On Committee Stage he stated that additional jurisdiction was required in the case of Foynes. Does he still hold that view or is he awaiting the report of the mediator?

It is with some disappointment that I speak to this amendment. Throughout all Stages of the Bill the Minister made considerable effort to meet the demands of the Opposition so that the best possible Bill would be enacted. The jurisdiction of the estuary is a vexed question with a long history. The Foynes harbour trustees date back to 1890 and the port harbours tribunal, as far back as 1930, recommended that the jurisdiction of Foynes harbour should be defined and extended. The Murphy report spelled out the need to deal with the matter and on Committee Stage the Minister proposed the appointment of a mediator that would be acceptable to both sides. The mediator has submitted his report but it is disappointing that the Minister has not introduced an amendment to end the saga.

Limerick and Foynes are two commercial ports. The request from Foynes Harbour Authority is for less than 4 per cent of the foreshore, representing approximately five miles of the natural land and water reserves attaching to a port that has expanded successfully since 1965. As reported in the Official Report of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy of 26 July the Minister stated:

I am familiar with the issue that has arisen in Foynes. I visited Foynes harbour 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 request for Foynes is justified because of its rate of expansion. It would be a great pity if, in the closing stages of this Bill we did not deal in a conclusive and comprehensive way with this matter. The mediator met both sides and since his report is available to the Minister he must be aware of the recomendation in this regard. It is inconceivable, based on the Minister's experience and his statement, which I accept as absolutely genuine following his visit to Foynes, that any mediator would turn down the request made by Foynes to allow them proper berthage and the proper commercial freedom of management of the area around the port. The harbour commissioners in Foynes are not making an unusual or exorbitant request. They have tailored their needs to what most of us would consider the minimum requirements. The area sought is not sought by and would never be useful to any other harbour.

In all the amendments the Minister has brought forward on foot of discussions with harbour authorities and harbour interests and discussion in this House and in the select committee, he has attempted to address most or all of the problems in a genuine way. This is one outstanding problem which goes back in history and all assessments of the problem lead to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of Foynes should be increased. The management, workforce and board have a proven track record. The Minister has an opportunity finally to lay this matter to rest. Since we have tried to avoid divisions so far I am anxious to avoid a division on this issue. I want to be absolutely consistent in this matter and it would be a last resort on my part if I were to press the amendment. I am also conscious that Government Deputies who are as interested in this matter as I am should not be compromised for political reasons.

I ask the Minister to do one of two things: tell the House that he has the mediator's report, that he will give us access to the recommendations and that he is preparing an amendment for the Seanad to deal with the matter on the basis of equality and fair play, or alternatively inform us that he has at hand an amendment which we can accept. In light of the historical evidence, the Minister's genuine statements and the efforts made by all of us to solve this problem, to pass the legislation without dealing with this matter would be a retrograde step. Amendments have been brought forward on issues that are not as important as this and that have not created such difficulties. Given the commitment made on Committee Stage that if the mediator's report was available prior to the conclusion of Report Stage an amendment would be brought forward, I see no reason that the Minister cannot bring forward such an amendment or give an undertaking in that regard on the basis of the published mediation report.

On Report Stage we do not have the opportunity to respond in detail except with the forbearance of the Chair. I do not want to hear from the Minister that changes may be made to solve this problem after the passage of the Bill. I have been a Member of this House for a long time and I cannot recall a precedent where a Bill was amended in the early stages after its passage. It usually stands the test of time for a number of years. In this case all the wrong signals will be given if we fail to deal with the matter now. I ask the Minister to do his best to solve this problem either in the way I have suggested or otherwise.

As Deputy Smith said, we have discussed many amendments to this Bill that were not as important as this one. The Foynes authority is not making an extraordinary request. All it is seeking is a small extension of its shoreline to accommodate vessels that cannot travel upstream, and it is sensible that such a request be granted. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether the mediator's report is available to him. If a decision is not made on this matter now it will never be made and Foynes will find itself in a cul-de-sac.

This port has generated a huge amount of business since it was restructured some years ago and the prospects for it are great. It is possible for many ships to travel only as far as Foynes; they are unable to travel to Limerick. Whereas the harbour commissioners govern this area, the ports authority governs the area I represent. The position is similar in other areas such as Waterford and Dublin. Foynes is seeking only a small extension to its port to accommodate big ships and it is right and proper that request be granted.

My views on this matter are well known. I sat through the entire Committee Stage of the Harbours Bill and I regard this as the most important amendment. Given that I am a member of the Foynes harbour board I have an emotional interest in this matter. I come from Foynes and my late father who was a harbour pilot gave a lifetime of service to the port of Foynes. However, apart from the emotional aspect, there is logic in what Foynes is looking for. Foynes Harbour was established in 1890 and its jurisdiction was set at one mile. The Limerick Harbour Authority claims jurisdiction over the entire estuary, not by way of statute but by some mythical dart which was thrown into the estuary some time in the past. Foynes has expanded and has more than 1.4 million tonnes of cargo and ships up to 35,000 tonnes deadweight entering the harbour. The only two ports in the country which can achieve that are Dublin and Cork.

I was delighted recently when it was designated as one of the 12 commercial ports, which was only right. That is what we are trying to achieve here. Foynes is seeking an extension of its jurisdiction because it intends to expand as a commercial port. It sees the drift in shipping to 60,000 and 70,000 tonners and recognises that the capacity of its port will not be able to cater for that size of ship. Therefore, it wants to move further down the estuary. As I am sure any Minister or official would agree its demands are very reasonable.

A mediator was appointed in recent weeks and I had hoped the amendment would be compatible with that tabled by Deputy Browne of Wexford. The Minister, Deputy Barrett, and the Minister of State are well aware of my interest in this matter and I have lobbied intensively about its importance. I accept that the Minister assured me that the report of the mediator was an interim one.

The Minister also assured me that Foynes' jurisdiction will be extended and the question is to what degree will it be extended. I will not be satisfied by a cosmetic exercise to limit the extension of Foynes' jurisdiction because that would not meet the wishes of those responsible, which is a chance to expand as a commercial port. The former Minister, Deputy Coveney, recognised that it was a progressive port when he allocated more than £5 million to increase the berthage of the existing facilities and for warehousing facilities in Foynes. Therefore, the Government recognises the importance of Foynes. Will the Minister give an assurance that the jurisdiction of Foynes will be extended?

I sought to make this change on Committee Stage but it appears that is difficult. The amendment refers to 90º when it should read 9º.

That would be some extension. As Deputies are aware, the Minister, Deputy Barrett, appointed Mr. Patrick J. Murphy to act as independent mediator between Limerick Harbour Commissioners and Foynes Harbour trustees in the matter of an application by Foynes Harbour for an extension of its jurisdiction. The mediation process commenced early last month and an interim report was received by the Minister on 12 October. The interim report needs to be tested and developed further, which will be done by the mediator at the earliest opportunity. The issue, as Deputies are aware, is sensitive and we are conscious of the need to tread cautiously with a view to arriving at the right decision.

Unfortunately, the mediation process has not yet been concluded and, therefore, I am not yet in a position to go into any detail about it. However, it is only right that I should indicate to Deputies the general approach which I propose to take on this issue. I intend to extend the limits and jurisdiction of Foynes Harbour. I wish to assure Deputy Finucane that I do not intend it to be a small cosmetic extension.

As I said on Committee Stage, and as Deputy Smith reminded me in the course of his contribution, I am satisfied that there is a case for the extension of the limits and the jurisdiction of Foynes Harbour, with which I intend to proceed. That will obviously involve consequential changes in the jurisdiction of the Shannon estuary ports company. As Deputy Smith said, this issue has been kicking around for a long time and has been the subject of some debate in the area. I am sure Deputies will appreciate that it is not simply a matter of arbitrarily drawing lines on a map. Apart from the views of the respective port companies and harbour commissioners, there are issues relating to navigation, hydrographic issues and so on which have to be taken into account in any decision of this kind.

The process of mediation which we started will take a little longer. When it is completed I intend to proceed with an extension of Foynes Harbour. If the process is completed prior to the Bill being taken in the Seanad I will deal with it in that House. However, assuming that the Bill passes through this House today, I do not have control over when it will be taken in the Seanad and the time involved.

It will be dealt with fairly quickly.

That may be so. I do not want to make a rash promise about the Seanad which time constraints could prevent me from meeting. However, if the final report is available I will deal with it in the Seanad. If it is not available before that, a further amendment to the Bill is not required. Deputy Smith raised the possibility of the Bill having to be amended shortly after it is passed. It will not require an amendment to the legislation. Section 9 will enable the Minister to change the jurisdiction by order. Deputy Smith also asked for an assurance on the publication of the arbitrator's report. I have no difficulty in making that report available when it is completed.

Deputy Smith said that he was not anxious that we divide on this issue and I wish to tell him that I intend to extend the limits of Foynes Harbour and it will not be a cosmetic extension. There are complex issues involved which the arbitration process has not yet completed. When that is completed I will deal with the matter either in the Seanad or by using section 9(2).

I am replying on behalf of Deputy Browne.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

That is the Acting Chairman's usual flexible, adaptable style. It would be a great pity if, while we propose on occasion to rule the nation, we are not flexible enough to make such an adjustment. I am grateful to all who agreed to facilitate me.

I mentioned the question of introducing amending legislation as quickly as possible because I was aware of section 9 (2) and the ministerial order required. Under that section the Minister granted jurisdiction to one authority knowing he would change it. I do not remember any precedent in that context where such changes were made as quickly as might have been indicated at that time. That is why I was anxious to be further assured about the Minister's intentions.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has been given those assurances.

The assurances given by the Minister have gone a long way to alleviate the problem. He has assured us he will grant an extension to the new Foynes harbour company, that he will publish the final report on which that decision was based and will attempt if that appropriate port is available to make a suitable amendment in the Seanad, time permitting. In those circumstances I am in a position to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to the end of this historical saga with Foynes harbour authorities in the long run securing a reasonable outcome to its genuine demand.

I compliment Deputy Smith for his constructive approach.

I compliment Deputy Clohessy who displayed a most unusual forthright style and responsible stand on this issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 83, line 1, to delete "Hill" and substitute "Pill"

This important amendment corrects a misspelling in the provision relating to the limits of the Waterford Harbour Commissioners. "Killoteran" is a pill rather than a hill. I recommend acceptance of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 93, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(c)" to pass an examination by a competent authority that they can adequately and safely communicate in, and understand, English, to such a degree as will not compromise the safety of operations within the Pilotage District.".

In the past few hours much importance has been attached to the role of harbour pilots who must be competent in a very specialised job. It should be necessary to pass an examination to qualify for the position of harbour pilot.

We discussed this matter on Committee Stage. Paragraph (6) of this section empowers a port company to insert in pilotage by-laws in relation to an application to a company for a renewal of a pilotage certificate, the phrase "such other requirements that the company deems appropriate". I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to include in primary legislation the provision to which Deputy Clohessy referred. It is more appropriate to include it in the pilotage by-laws made under paragraph (b). I assure Deputy Clohessy that I will direct the pilotage authorities to include in their pilotage by-laws a provision similar to the one he is seeking, that will require persons concerned to be able to communicate with each other.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank all Members of the House who contributed to this constructive debate. There was a general spirit of co-operation on all sides in getting the Bill through. I thank the chairman of the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy, Deputy Bell, for the manner in which he facilitated the Bill's passage through Committee Stage. I express my appreciation to the officials in the Department of the Marine and my ministerial colleague, Deputy Barrett, for their work and co-operation on the preparation and processing of the Bill. This important legislation will establish the main harbours as commercial State companies. It is the first major legislation dealing with harbours in almost 50 years. It is opening up a new era for port development. As we are aware, more than 90 per cent of our trade passes through our sea ports which are critically important to our trade, economy and competitiveness. A two pronged approach is being taken by the Government to the development of our harbours; the legislative approach establishing the 12 major ports as commercial companies and a major investment programme through the deployment of EU funds in the development of the ports. That coupled with developments in shipping will mark the beginning of a new era for shipping and ports. This legislation is a watershed.

Many issues that we did not address by way of amendment on Report Stage were raised during the course of the debate. Towards the end of Committee Stage Deputy Molloy raised an important question and sought to call my bluff regarding the definition of the term "clow". I undertook to provide him with a definition of that term on Report Stage. I found a definition of the term in an old Oxford dictionary provided by the Galway Harbour Commissioners. The term "clow" appears in that dictionary immediately before the term "clown". There are two possible applications of it. One is a dam for water, a sluice or flood gate, as I suspected when Deputy Molloy raised the question. The other definition is an implement resembling a dungfork with the prongs bent at right angles and used for dragging dung out of cow stalls. I suspect the definition included in the Harbours Bill is the former rather than the latter.

I would like a copy of the definition of that term for Deputy Molloy.

It was a pleasant debate. Given that the Minister had the opportunity to familiarise himself with the Oxford dictionary and the different meanings of a term highlights the extent to which we deviated at times from serious work. That is perfectly legitimate.

I thank his officials and the spokes-persons on all sides on their great effort to produce good legislation. We probably underestimate the value of water, the seas and our rivers in the context of national development. It is good to see a commercial ethos and new thinking in the way in which we are to transport goods, manage harbours and develop businesses in a more competitive manner. We often say we are a peripheral country but we are fortunate to have deep waters and we have a range of harbour facilities which need to be commercially developed. Let us hope this Bill will play its part in expanding national development, providing employment and enhancing our environment. The use of our ports and seas in the context of trade is a more advisable way to proceed than cluttering up inland transport systems as Ireland and most countries have done in the past. As an inland Deputy I was happy to become familiar with some of the terms but I have a long way to go to become totally familiar with them. I am grateful to my colleagues for the support given to me during the debate.

I thank the Opposition for the constructive way it handled the debate. The Harbours Bill is both significant and interesting legislation. I compliment the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials who drafted the legislation. Deputy Peadar Clohessy could probably have adopted a different attitude on the amendment relating to Foynes because he represents Limerick East which embraces Limerick Harbour. His stance indicates the quality of Deputy Clohessy in that he could see the validity of what Foynes was seeking. I look forward to seeing Foynes as a commercial port. I am sure the Minister and his officials will grant what appears to be a logical extension to what the Foynes authorities want.

I join with Deputies in paying tribute to the Minister of State for putting this Bill through the Dáil and compliment all those who contributed in various ways to its passage. Unfortunately, I was not available for Second and Committee Stages but I am pleased to be present today for Report and Final Stages. Some 90 per cent of our trade comes through the ports. Our ports are exceptionally good and are probably the best in Europe. We should be mindful of that and ensure they are utilised to the utmost. Shannon, Dublin and Wexford ports are excellent and handle a huge amount of shipping. This is an important Bill. It may not appear important to those living inland but to those around the estuaries it is of vital importance to the commerce of the towns and villages.

Will the Minister be good enough to give me a copy of the two definitions he took from the Oxford dictionary so that I can hand them over to Deputy Molloy? This would be appreciated.

If time permits.

Maybe there would be some use for that dung fork here from time to time. I am inclined to agree with the Minister that the first definition was correct.

I am pleased having set out on this voyage many months ago that we have arrived safely. I thank all concerned because a good day's work has been done today. I compliment all the members of the harbour commissioners, chief executives and harbour masters who spent some time in the gallery, including the many people from whom we have received representations, all of which contributed to our having a good Bill. We travelled through some difficult waters well charted by the Minister's officials. We did not go aground; we dropped anchor occasionally, the crew threatened mutiny occasionally but we had an excellent pilot. I commend the Minister of State for the manner in which he handled the Bill. This is a good day's work and it will benefit the country economically and in every other way.

(Wexford): I thank the Minister and his officials for their courtesy during the times I was involved with the Bill. On the last day I was annoyed that the Minister was not conceding any ground, but today he more than made up for that by granting a review group for Waterford and New Ross.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn