Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1976

Vol. 83 No. 12

Harbours Bill, 1975: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to establish a harbour authority for Bantry Bay in pursuance of the Government decision announced on 29th October, 1974. The Bill is, as Senators will see, simple and straightforward. It provides for the establishment of a harbour authority to be known as the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners and for the addition of the new authority to the authorities in Part II of the First Schedule to the Harbours Act, 1946. This means in effect that the new authority will be subject to the provisions of the Harbours Acts, 1946 and 1947. The Bill also defines the area of jurisdiction of the proposed authority which, broadly speaking, is the whole of the Bay except the Castletownbere Fishery Harbour Centre, over which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will retain control. The pier at Bantry which is at present under the control of Cork County Council will be transferred to the new authority, but responsibility for other piers in the Bay will not be affected by the Bill. The proposed authority will have powers, functions and duties which I believe will be adequate to meet the situation at Bantry. For Senators' information, I will outline the considerations which led to the introduction of this Bill.

In 1968, the Gulf Oil Corporation of America established, and have since operated there, a crude oil transhipment terminal at Whiddy Island in Bantry Bay, where they have provided an off-shore jetty and ancillary facilities. The corporation hold, with effect from 2nd October, 1968, a 99-year lease of about 195 acres of foreshore at Whiddy Island at an annual rent of £7,000 per annum. The lease was granted in accordance with the provisions of the Foreshore Act, 1933.

At the time of establishment of the Gulf Oil terminal at Whiddy the need for a harbour authority was examined in my Department. The conclusion reached at the time was that for the satisfactory operation of the terminal there a harbour authority was not required. Pilotage was being provided on an own-user basis by Gulf, whilst enforcement of requirements relating to safety of navigation generally in the bay, pollution control and so on, could be effectively supervised by the relevant authorities concerned, viz. the Commissioners of Irish Lights, my Department and the county council. Gulf Oil had no objection in principle to the establishment of a harbour authority and to the payment of dues in respect of the services rendered by such body, but from their point of view, the whole project at Whiddy was only marginally economic and they should not be expected to make substantial payments over and above what would be necessary to defray the cost of the necessary facilities and services which a harbour authority would be expected to provide. A harbour authority was not necessary in the circumstances then obtaining. As the terminal and adjacent waters did not fall within the jurisdiction of any existing harbour authority, no dues fell to be paid by Gulf. At the same time the right was reserved to set up a harbour authority at a later stage if that proved to be necessary or desirable, and this condition was accepted by Gulf on the understanding that they would not be expected to pay dues incommensurate with the necessary services which such a harbour authority would provide. Since the terminal was opened Gulf have provided at their own expense the facilities and services which they would normally expect to obtain from a harbour authority in return for dues. This position still obtains.

Regardless of the question of harbour dues, the Gulf Oil terminal at Bantry is of very considerable value both to the immediate locality and to the nation generally. The original capital investment by the Company in Ireland was substantial and very welcome. Arising from the operation of their terminal Gulf are responsible for the spending of a considerable sum by way of wages, salaries, fees and so on, amounting in the aggregate to something in excess of £1 million per annum. Revenue arising directly or indirectly from each call of a large tanker is nearly £20,000. In addition to these benefits, the Gulf Oil Corporation have entered into formal agreement to hold a reserve of one million barrels of crude oil at Whiddy which would be at the disposal of the Government in the event of an emergency. This stock represents approximately ten days supply for the State and, as on the occasion of the oil crisis in 1973, would be available as an iron ration which would be refined in Cork if that became necessary. The current value of the agreement to the economy is indicated by the following figures. The cost of providing the tankage for one million barrels would be about £3.5 million and the cost of the crude oil itself about £4 million, i.e. a total capital cost of about £7.5 million. The annual operating costs would be approximately £750,000. It will be seen, therefore, that Gulf's operations are of considerable benefit to the local and national economies.

I am convinced that local and, indeed, national appreciation of this value is increasing. This is evidenced by the concern being expressed at the current down-turn in activity at the Gulf terminal. I welcome recent assurances from Gulf of their intention to stay in Bantry Bay. However, we must accept that the immediate future for the terminal is going to be difficult. Many factors are contributing to this, the majority of which— for example, the stagnation in world oil consumption, the consequent recession in the crude oil shipping industry and overcapacity in European refineries—are outside our control. It is all the more desirable, therefore, that those factors which are under our control should not aggravate the present difficulties of the terminal.

It would be idle to pretend that the decision to establish a harbour authority at Bantry is not related to the unfortunate incidence of oil spillage in the bay. While the two most recent spillages were very serious, it is important to retain a sense of proportion in the matter. The total quantity of oil spilled in Bantry since the terminal was opened in 1968 is only a minute fraction—some 0.002 per cent —of the total throughput of oil there. By any standards, this is a good record. I must stress, however, that I am emphatic, as indeed are Gulf themselves, that as far as is humanly possible, no spillage at all should occur.

Even if there had been no serious spillage, the logic of events was such that the establishment of a controlling authority for the Bay was only a matter of time. As is generally known, planning permission has been granted for a large oil refinery at Whiddy Island. In addition, there is a proposal for an off-shore oil platform construction project near Castletownbere. There may well be other similar major industrial proposals. The possibility that in the fairly near future more than one major user might be involved at Bantry Bay meant that some form of controlling authority would eventually be required. In considering what form of authority would best suit, regard has been had to local conditions and to possible industrial developments, and so on there. Following close consultation with local interests, and indeed some national interests with local application, I have come to the conclusion that what might be termed a traditional-type harbour authority under the Harbours Acts, 1946-47, would best suit for the following reasons:—

(a) my primary concern is for the safety of navigation within the Bay and for the provision and proper regulation of harbour facilities required there; a harbour authority as now proposed will have the necessary powers to ensure this,

(b) an equally important concern of mine is the prevention of oil pollution in the Bay. The relevant Acts governing oil pollution—the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts, 1956-65—are at present under review and I intend to promote legislation to provide for greater penalties for conviction on indictment of oil pollution,

(c) the conservation of natural amenities within the Bantry Bay area is a function proper to the planning authority, in this case the Cork County Council,

(d) the industrial development of the area is a function proper to the Industrial Development Authority and to my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, subject to planning approval.

Under the Acts of 1946-47, a harbour authority is classified according to whether it is listed in Part I or Part II of the First Schedule to the 1946 Act. The harbours colloquially known as Part I harbours are the major ports of Cork, Dublin, Limerick and Waterford; harbour authorities for such harbours are comprised of 23 members. As Bantry Bay is essentially a one-user harbour, I consider it would more appropriately be classified as a Part II harbour which, under the Acts, has an 11-man authority. Representation is provided under the Acts for four local authority nominees, two local chamber of commerce nominees, two elected members representing shipping interests and three ministerial nominees—one of whom must represent labour interests. I should like to emphasise that, apart from the representation provisions, the differences between Part I and Part II harbours are minimal. A Part I harbour authority has, effectively, no additional powers or functions over a Part II harbour authority.

The present Bill accordingly proposes to add Bantry Bay to the list of harbours in Part II of the First Schedule to the Harbours Act, 1946. All the provisions of the Acts of 1946 and 1947 will apply to the new authority. The authority will, therefore, have adequate powers to control navigation within the bay, to levy tonnage, goods and service rates to meet necessary expenditure on harbour facilities and to make bye-laws for the good management of their harbour. I am satisfied that the new authority, based as it is on the concept of local and independent control of Bantry Bay, will prove itself fully suited and adequate to meet the situation at Bantry and I therefore confidently commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Killilea

We on this side of the House welcome the Bill. We welcome the Bill, as the Minister himself has stated in the actual document circulated to the House, but it would be wrong for him or for us to say that this Bill was not brought in more speedily than it would normally be on account of the pollution situation and the spillage of oil in Bantry Bay. We welcome the Bill and the establishment of the authority. In so doing we also welcome the Minister's own admission in his document to the House that Gulf were never against the establishment of an authority and neither were the previous Government, as at times on public platforms, particularly in Cork, and on one occasion on national television it was stated that they were against it. But it is nice to see and hear from the Minister, who has all the facts before him, stating in this House that neither parties were ever against the establishment of the authority.

He goes on further to say that it was because of the amount of money spent by Gulf Oil in the Bantry Bay region, that particular part of west Cork, that they were serving a purpose, possibly the purpose of authority up to now. Indeed, the spillage is a small amount of the throughput in the actual Bay. The quantity of crude oil that is being transferred from boats to land to stock is so large that even a small spill could cause havoc and destroy a lot of nice scenery. Whether the establishment of the authority will stop that, we just have to wait and see. Sometimes those things are accidents and no authority or no body could stop them. I would go so far as to say that they might stop any neglect that might lead to a spillage.

There are a few other things I would like to say, and I suppose I am not really that close to the Bill, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, in this, that regarding the authority itself the Minister defines who goes on the authority and that is by a previous Act. I think that we have learned a lesson in Galway Harbour Authority ourselves. It is important for the fishing interests, particularly the fishing interests of west Cork, and, indeed, more particularly the fishing interests of the entire country these days, as we have a new natural resource which we are claiming new limits for, that we spend some money for the great benefit of the nation as a whole in years to come. I would suggest—and I am sure the Minister and his Department are quite aware of it—that there is a lack of interest shown in the fishermen on such boards, particularly in Galway. Galway, for example, caused untold commotion amongst harbour authorities. In fact, I would go so far as to say that at a particular time in recent years the Galway Harbour Authority had a detestation for fishermen, for the workings of fishermen and their catches, and, indeed, did everything possible to make things awkward for them to land their catch. However, as fish has become a big business now in most ports, and as the tonnage of fish being handled every day seems to be getting larger, and naturally will get larger, particularly when we are looking for the extension of our limits, I would suggest to the Minister that this is a glorious opportunity for him personally and for the Government, or any Government, to bring into being the recognition of fishermen on such authorities. The Minister has three nominees and one of them is labour. I would suggest that the other should represent the fishermen.

That particular appointment, as has happened since the State began, will probably be given on a political hack basis. Every Government make mistakes, but I think this Government have made more mistakes than any other. If we look at the Boards they have set up, the people they have put on the Sugar Company board is nothing less than humiliation. On the CIE board we have people who are lawnmower salesmen, driving trains up and down to Dublin——

Mr. P. Barry

Is it in order for him to say this?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should confine himself to the subject.

Mr. Killilea

I will stand over anything I say in this House. It is a fact that the appointments to boards were not correct and have not been correct.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I must ask the Senator to return to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Killilea

I am asking that the fishermen be considered particularly and especially. I have given the reason for it and in so doing, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, I have pointed out that fishermen should be considered because I gave examples of what has happened on other boards. I think I am not outside the Bill at all, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, in saying that, because I gave a reason for saying it. I think I am quite correct in doing so. The Government have made mistakes and I know every man in this House realises that.

I think it is important, particularly in west Cork, that the tourists' interests are considered. I do not know whether the Minister can nominate somebody from the tourist board, or whether the county council could use one of their nominations from the tourist point of view, but I think that the tourist industry should be represented on such boards and should, in fact, be included here so that the feelings of the tourist industry should be made known to such boards as this one. I do not know that much about west Cork. When I talk about the setting up of harbour boards, I just have to look four or five miles from where I live and see what has happened.

This Minister has had an uncomfortable time, and the last Minister had an uncomfortable time, because the interests were not shared across the board. Everybody's case was not heard properly. There would seem to be a bias against this particular section. I say that quite clearly and unequivocally here or in any other public place in this country. It is the truth. If we cannot say those things there is no point being in public life.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

In fairness I think that the ministerial interjection was that, while the general criticism of appointments was appropriate, the identification of appointments by profession and on a particular board was singularly inappropriate.

Mr. Killilea

If Senator Higgins wants to protect a man who is able to drive a lawnmower and is expected to run the board of CIE, that is Senator Higgins' business. I am not going to stand over the appointment at all. I think it is just as bad to have a man who knows nothing about growing beet representing beet growers on the Irish Sugar Company board. I do not think it is right.

Mr. Markey

Tony O'Reilly knew nothing about beans.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Please allow the Senator to continue with the Bill.

Mr. Killilea

We are talking about a matter of fact. The Minister knows as well as I do that if he wants to talk at that level he can talk to me at that level, because he sat at a table last week listening to the cries of a particular section of the community who, in their opinion, had no representative on a particular board. Yet, however, in the town from which that particular representation came to the Minister there was a member on that particular board. Yet that man did not know what was going on in that town. I feel that this Government have made wrong appointments and I say it openly. I think the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Barry, is a reasonable man and he understands what I am saying. Here is a glorious opportunity to fit in two sections of the community that are appropriate to Bantry Bay.

I do not know that much about Bantry Bay, but I pass around it occasionally and it is a beautiful place. I know there is a lot of fishing out of Bantry Bay. Fishermen from our city go down along the south coast to fish. They are good fishermen and catch good fish. The point is that fishermen should be represented on such a board. After all, if there is nothing else in Bantry Bay other than Gulf Oil, who also is to use Bantry Bay, by the Minister's own words, other than fishermen? I am making a case on their behalf and I think it is only proper and right that I should. I am sorry if I hurt anyone by instancing past mistakes. I think it is true to say that the folly of your past is never judged in the wisdom of your future. This certainly is very appropriate here. I have asked the Minister in a calm sense to consider that point. It is about the only point. If representatives of the tourist board and the fishermen are nominated to this Board of Commissioners, it will be a move forward, particularly from the point of view of the fishermen.

I am delighted to hear that Gulf are not against this authority. I am also delighted to hear that the previous Government were not against this authority, and I think it clears the air that much. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I join with those in the other House and, indeed, with the Opposition who have welcomed this new Bill which will establish a harbour authority for Bantry Bay. The case for a harbour authority at Bantry Bay has been made by the Minister in his Second Stage speech, and to some extent it has brought a response from both Houses. I must confess to some disappointment at the kind of response. The Minister in establishing a harbour authority and invoking the statutory instruments of 1946 and 1947, is raising issues which go quite far and quite deep in relation to the marine management of this country. In response to Senator Killilea's particular point concerning the representation of fishermen on the board itself, there is provision for this under the Acts at present. Probably where his point is correct is as to which group within the fishing community should make the appointment. Should it be, for example, a promotional agency, or should it be an organisation of local fishermen actually fishing themselves? This is a point on which I would be inclined to favour the people who are operating fishing vessels out of the port. For a long time, however, I have been dissatisfied. I was dissatisfied somewhat with the Minister's suggestions in relation to Bantry. I think they can be met by an assurance from the Minister that a future consolidation Bill might be forthcoming which would deal with the general matter of the management of harbours. For example, when he came down in favour of the 1946-47 model of a port authority he did so for the wrong reasons. Some time ago I criticised these pieces of legislation as being particularly unsuitable for ports in present circumstances.

I could summarise generally my criticism of them. The harbour board as envisaged in the 1946 Act and the amendment in the 1947 Act become very much a management body in a narrow sense. Their duties are specified rather tightly. It is doubtful if, in fact, they could become development bodies. To my mind, harbour authorities—and I will illustrate this in a moment—are precluded from becoming development agencies for ports by the statutes as they exist at present. Now, given the structure of the fishing industry internationally, particularly the developments that are likely in oil and gas, also the related ancillary industries which are likely to be started, it is probably likely that such Acts with such tightly and narrowly defined functions are inappropriate. Even within their narrow limits, the boards as established have not functioned very well.

May I give an example, particularly as I want to be accurate about this. The feeling, in fact, concerning the management of the Dock Regulations Order of 1930, which was the equivalent charter for dock labour as the Factories Act was in another setting, is that in a number of cases harbour authorities have been singularly remiss in fulfilling their obligations to the dock community of workers. In February, 1970, the Irish National Productivity Committee published a report on the conditions at Galway Dock, most of the research for which I was responsible for, and this showed that the conditions of the 1930 Act were not being complied with. In addition there is a case to be made that the harbour membership as it is specified in the Acts and as referred to in the Minister's speech is extremely narrow. Immediately there is posed the tension between traditional users of a port and potential users of a port, that is, that for a very long time if one has a traditional dock force demands will be made on that force for three kinds of users: general cargo usage which is somewhat on the decline where in fact the building industry is established heavily for timber and other materials and now where there is a new kind of development related to oil and gas which will be making an entirely new set of demands.

It is encouraging to note that some of the recent publications from the oil and gas world suggest that people have moved from a rural hinterland into work associated with the ancillary industries of the oil and gas development with relatively little difficulty. The point remains that there is tension between existing and potential users. It could be argued that the specification within the Act mitigates against the new user, the new development user, and in favour of the traditional user.

I should like the Minister to give an assurance that he will shortly think of bringing together in a single instrument all the legislation dealing with ports and docks labour. If I might give an instance of the confusion that exists: on page 186 of the report of the INPC of February, 1970, there is quoted a statement from a paper delivered by the harbour master in Galway entitled "Aspects of port trade improvement". We were placed in the curious position at that time that the Minister for Transport and Power of the day, that was in 1967, at the inaugural lunch at the commencement of a major harbour development scheme, was urging the harbour commissioners to sell their port, an act which was precisely outside the terms which the Act allowed. Therefore, one could say that one had a ministerial suggestion that an authority established with limited powers would go beyond those powers. To my mind this was unfortunate.

The general powers of a harbour authority and the powers which are being invoked now for the Bantry body as a class 2 port are contained in Part V, chapter 1 of the Harbours Act, 1946, particularly in sections 47, 48, 49 and 50. One gets an idea of how little a harbour authority can do from the listing of functions. These are, first, in section 47:

(1) A harbour authority shall take all proper measures for the management, control and operation of their harbour and shall provide reasonable facilities and accommodation therein for vessels, goods and passengers.

(2) A harbour authority shall take all proper measures for the maintenance and operation of all works, structures, bridges, equipment and facilities under their control.

(3) A harbour authority may make such charges as they consider proper for the use of any facility or accommodation provided by them under this section for passengers.

Sections 48 reads:

(1) A harbour authority shall take all proper measures for cleaning, scouring, deepening, improving and dredging their harbour and the approaches thereto and, subject to any directions which the Minister may give, shall dispose of dredged material either by depositing it at sea or in such other way as they think proper.

The Act goes on to state as to what in fact the harbour authority may provide. It lists tenders, dredgers, lifeboats, lighters, tugboats, vessels, cranes, weighing and measuring appliances, tools, plants, equipment and appliances of different kinds.

There are two kinds of interpretation of these sections. One is the minimal interpretation which has been the model one, I would suggest, that is, that authorities have tended to interpret these in the narrow sense as operating in the most limited sense rather than in the widest sense. It is perfectly clear—and it is a point that was replied to by the Minister when this was discussed in the other House —that, of course, there was always the constraint of finance. One may, for example, have the power to provide facilities but one may lack the finance. It is true that the Minister for Transport and Power of the day even wanting to invoke sections 46 and 47 of the Act in the most generous sense would when wishing to move beyond a sum of £50,000 have to approach the Minister for Finance. My view is that the harbours of the future will be facing different tasks altogether than the harbours which were envisaged in these statutes. Certainly there may be an urgency in dealing with the position of Bantry but this should not now, in so far as it is mentioned so central in the Minister's speech, stop us from considering the necessity of overall change in legislation.

May I make a quick point concerning this? What kind of authority would I envisage? The kind of authority that might be appropriate would be a development authority that could take such multi-purpose development into account. I have mentioned a conflict of interest which may well be represented on the board itself by, for example, traditional users of ports and potential users but if one takes, for example, the potential development of the area surrounding the Porcupine Bank and the problems that it will pose for ports along the coast which is adjacent to that, it will be necessary to balance often as to whether the long-term or medium-term development of the fishing industry should take priority over other economic usages of the sea-bed. An authority, therefore, needs to be able to employ marine economists. In addition to that, if it is to move into the area of development of oil and gas resources, it will need to have sufficient powers to operate a marketing type of venture, that is, to sell its port. It has been presented to me again and again when I have sought information from secretaries to harbour boards that they are precluded from involving themselves in such a marketing venture.

I note one comment in the Minister's statement which worried me somewhat in regard to some questions as to what he proposed for the Limerick area when he said, as reported at column 1095 of the Dáil Official Report of 3rd March that he has another Bill which will affect the Limerick area and which he hopes to have before the Dáil this session. People with curious minds, like myself, wonder as to whether the Bill which would deal with the Limerick area and the grouped ports would have greater powers than the existing authorities who are operating under the 1946 and 1947 Acts. Should such be the case it would mean automatically that that area which is represented by the three ports would be operating at a singular advantage in the oil and gas world internationally with other ports. It would be rather like the position in which SFADCo found itself in relation to the IDA development regions. It is for this reason, then, that I think that an urgent review of the position in which existing ports are operating is necessary.

I am reluctant to speak about Senator Killilea's brief speech in his absence but while I agree with his plea that fishermen be represented on harbour boards, I think many difficulties in the past, particularly in local districts, could have been avoided if such was the case. It is interesting to note, though, that he made no case for direct representation of dockers on harbour boards, yet any of us who has studied ports and docks know that the people who represent the ports more than anybody else, who in their consciousness have a loyalty to the port, are dockers. I think dockers have been studied sociologically in only a few areas—Liverpool docks and to some extent in some minor ports the longshoremen have been studied in the United States while in Ireland there have been brief studies of the conditions of dockers in Galway and Limerick. But all studies reveal a similar finding, that is, that in the case of the Galway one, which I will take in particular, of the entire community of dockers something in the region of 90 per cent were related to one another and many of them were in fact in terms of their families spending their third generation at the docks. There was an identification, therefore, with the port, and indeed their fortunes rose and fell with the life of a port, yet they are not directly represented. The reply may be of course that there is provision and indeed there is an assurance, it might be said, that one of the 11 members must be a representative of labour, but I would argue that this might often refer to the representative of the trade union which was organising the dockers in this particular instance. I would like if in fact such a representative on a harbour board was taken from the working community of dockers and I would have preferred if Senator Killilea had accommodated the demands of such a group of people together with fishermen.

I want to congratulate the Minister for being so straightforward and honest in respect to the dreadful happenings in Bantry Bay as regards spillage. When the first spillage occurred, many of us will remember what was the immediate result. It might be excused as mild cynicism, but not least of the results was the hiring by the company involved of a public relations firm which immediately circulated to Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas the official statement of the major executive of the company which contained the assurance that we would never have a spillage again. On that occasion, it is one of those occasions in my political life when my natural scepticism has been of great advantage, I informed the same company that I did not consider the assurances particularly adequate or good and that I would not be surprised if a second spillage occurred, which of course it did. I am not suggesting that I was in great joy at this. I simply think that in many cases we are faced with a fact of recent economic history. Given the revenue which Gulf was generating and given its job potential, acceptance of Gulf in the first place was probably not sufficiently well thought out. In other words the environmental impact of such a development was not properly or adequately teased out at that time. What is taking place now is very much an attempt to make up ground which was lost at the very beginning. The harbour authority will find themselves faced with new and exciting developments and decision making. I am not clear as to whether forthcoming legislation will give to harbour authorities not only the development function that I have mentioned already but also might devolve planning functions on them. If such was the case there are probably few areas where in fact environmental impact studies should be required statutorily as part of the proposed development.

I want to make some very simple suggestions concerning the harbour authorities. Very often people who are on harbour authorities seem to think that their job is to operate a minimum capital stock. To those members, and I am not one of them, who are in this House and who find themselves on harbour authorities. I would say that frequently what has been discussed at their meetings have been such things as the condition of a dock gate or something like that. Within the next year they will be asked as to what range of facilities they can provide, ranging from drinking water to medical assistance, to hotel accommodation, to the provision of pilots and of different kinds of communications and so on. If this is so the proposals for the new Bill in the Shannon/Limerick area may prejudice development, and I would like some assurances on that.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McCartin)

I would ask the Senator to confine himself more closely to the subject matter of the Bill. He is anticipating legislation which has not come before the House yet.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I must confess to having been encouraged by the Minister when in the Dáil he decided at one stage to address his remarks to authorities in general, so I must beg your forgiveness for following his example. In dealing with such new requirements, obviously the complexity of decisions which will be vested in harbour authorities will be very great indeed. Therefore there arises the question of accountability.

The image proposed for the new authority at Bantry seems to meet particularly, reaction to a certain impact on the environment, to certain unfortunate occurrences in Bantry, and indicates a real desire to raise revenue. This is realistic.

The Minister has invoked the model of the 1946 and 1947 boards, and with respect I suggest that giving them even an extension of life by establishing one more authority under these narrow conditions and with the relatively disastrous history I have instanced, particularly their failure in their compliance with minimal dock regulations established in 1930, with their failure to establish new trade, with their excessive reliance on traditional business interests, their inability to handle innovative suggestions and their lack of democratic structures, we should be looking towards new structures altogether. I look forward to that. I would ask the Minister to give me some assurances to some extent concerning the larger developments in which harbour authorities will be involved and that should there be a loosening of the powers of harbour boards, it will be general and applicable to all boards. What I have in mind is that each port board will be equally able to make its case.

In conclusion I would draw attention again to one point concerning harbour authorities. To what extent can they initiate research? As published in The Irish Press of October 19th, 1968, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Colley, set up a working group to inquire into the extent to which industries in the west were at a comparative disadvantage because of the cost of transport, but I am not aware that this working group ever made any recommendation as to the inadequacies of Galway port facilities as enabled under the 1946 and 1947 Acts quoted in the Minister's speech and now establishing the Bantry authority. In summary, therefore, the 1946 and 1947 Acts are very bad models, have in operation failed abysmally, are oriented towards the past and do not reflect what the community needs now. What is needed is an entirely new model with the authorities responsible to the entire community and capable of dealing with probably the most exciting marine developments that have occurred in the history of the State. In the short term, for what it will do for Bantry, and in so far as it will allow greater control to be exercised on the company that is operating there and that it is obviously being established with goodwill on both sides, the present Bill is to be welcomed, and I look forward to the Minister for Transport and Power bringing in further and more ambitious legislation, probably consolidating legislation in this area in general.

Mr. Dolan

I shall not delay the Minister on this because I am a landlubber and we have no harbours in my area, consequently I would not have the expertise, knowledge nor the statistical facts that have been so ably displayed here by Senator Higgins. However, I am interested in Bantry and in the development there. I have visited the area and I know it is one of the finest harbours in Europe. The scenery there is magnificent. It is good that the Gulf people have come in there because we are all anxious to get people to come here who will create jobs, and since crude oil has been brought in there and there is such an excellent harbour, I suppose that eventually all this will lead to the establishment of oil refineries and so on.

In his speech the Minister made reference to the recession in the use of crude oil, which has been caused by the oil shortage, oil prices and so on. It would be disastrous, from the economic point of view, if anything happened there that would discourage Gulf Oil or that would discourage further oil companies from coming in. Probably the main reason why this harbour authority is being set up is because of the oil spillages that took place in Bantry and the resultant outcry. In Dublin Bay where millions of tons of oil have been carried for years there has never been a spillage. This was an unfortunate incident in Bantry but it may have been exaggerated. However, it did occur and many people complained about it.

The first people who would have been directly effected were the fishermen. They were the people who were making a livelihood in that area. Any spillage would affect their livelihood. Consequently they would be justified in complaining. There were also complaints about the effect it would have on tourism. However, in all fairness, Gulf Oil were very generous and did Herculean work in ensuring that any traces of the oil spillage were dissipated as quickly as possible. Indeed, when I was there sometime later I could see no evidence that there had been any spillage. It is good for us that we have these people there. I am quite sure that none of them would dream of creating an oil spillage just for the sake of doing it. It is only natural, I suppose, that precautions would be more stringent in future. If the establishment of a harbour authority would help in that way, it is right to set it up.

I am not clear on the functions of an authority and so on, but I know they would need money, if what the Minister has outlined in his statement is required of them. While we may plan an authority, it will be important for us to know where the money is coming from or will it be available to set up this authority and provide the amenities which Gulf Oil or any other such concern would expect from a harbour authority. I would also be interested to know what part will, say, Cork County Council or Kerry County Council play in this. Would the payment for this be at national level? All these things are important in the context of the establishment of a harbour authority.

I agree with Senator M.D. Higgins when he says that dockers should have representation on such a board, because they are very important people. We know now, in this age of trade unionism, that stoppages could take place and goods be left lying in port for a long time. It is much better to have the goodwill of these people. The same should apply so far as the fishing industry is concerned and also tourism.

I welcome the Minister's intention in bringing in this Bill. If it will help in any way to alleviate any of the anxiety that many people have regarding oil spillages, it will be worth while.

Mr. Markey

The Minister is right in saying that it would have been only a matter of time until a harbour authority was essential for Bantry Bay. Developments in that area would have necessitated one, but that does not take away from the argument that can be made that perhaps a harbour authority should have been there from the very beginning, in 1968. The tonnage throughput in Bantry at that time and since then every year has been at least on a par with any other harbour authority in this country. That could well have justified the institution of a harbour authority from the beginning. Apart from the business aspect of it, 1968 is less than ten years ago, and in the sixties we had ample experience of what happened off the south and east coasts of England as regards oil spillages and I think we could well have seen that there was always that danger. Perhaps we could have avoided spillages by the institution of a harbour authority from the outset.

Oil spillages create a temporary hazard in an area, but although it is temporary and even though the Minister said in his speech that the amount of oil involved in the spillage at Bantry was only a fraction—some .002 per cent of the total throughput of oil there —the practical damages that can result from such a spillage are tremendous. There is also psychological damage. I do not think anybody wishes to have unclean waters off our shores at any time even for a limited period.

I would join with Senator Higgins in asking the Minister to look at the Harbour Acts of 1946 and 1947 again, to see if the terms of reference laid down within which harbour authorities should act are being complied with; and whether they are acting as satisfactorily as we wish in order to meet the challenges of future operations.

There are some anomalies in regard to the composition of harbour authorities. For example, in my own county of Louth, there is a harbour authority in Dundalk and one in Drogheda. For some historical reason there is a harbour authority in what is now only the small fishing port of Annagassan. In the larger and more busy fishing port of Clogher Head there is no harbour authority. In the northeastern part of the county, namely the Greenore-Carlingford-Omeath area, there is no harbour authority, and perhaps we should consider having one here because it is directly opposite on Carlingford Lough the multi-million capitalised Warrenpoint port. Therefore, it would be no harm for the Minister to look at the composition of harbour authorities throughout the country.

Are many of our harbour authorities aware of their functional capacities? They are supposed to be self-supporting and to operate in a commercial atmosphere. Are there enough harbour authorities in the country for future challenges?

This Bill is welcome because the harbour authority which it will create in the Bantry Bay area will help the situation. The points laid down by the Minister as the terms of reference for the harbour authority, namely, that they will operate as regards the safety of navigation within the Bay, they will comply as far as possible with that provision; they will help to minimise the threat of oil pollution although they may not be able to prevent it— we are aware of that unfortunate fact; they will certainly assist the planning authority of Cork County Council and the IDA in regard to industrial and environmental development in that area. For these reasons I should like some study to be given to the creation of new harbour authorities and development of some existing ones. That study might well involve reducing the number of authorities, because there are a few which exist mainly for historical reasons and they might no longer be viable.

I welcome the Bill and hope the harbour authority will be able to carry out the task for which it was created and that we will not have a further occurrence of oil pollution.

Mr. Deasy

I, too, welcome the Bill. It was inevitable that this Bill would be introduced because of the public outcry at the oil spillages at the Whiddy Island terminal. The public representatives and the people in general in County Cork made their feelings known in this respect. The oil spillages seemed to become more serious with time and the excuses proffered by Gulf Oil did not cut any ice. The harbour authority is a much better way of endeavouring to solve the problem rather than leaving it in the hands of the oil company.

The Bill raises a matter which I have often thought about and queried but on which I never received a straight answer from local authority or departmental officials, and that is the constitution of a harbour board. The Minister said in his statement that, under the Acts, the Bantry Bay Harbour Authority will have 11 members. Is that the normal number for a harbour commissioners board? I am a member of the Dungarvan Harbour Board and there are nine members on that board. Its constitution seems to be somewhat haphazard if not irregular. Is the situation similar in other parts of the country?

Mr. M.D. Higgins

It is only fair to say that under section 164 of the 1946 Act, the Minister is entitled to order a public inquiry——

Mr. P. Barry

I do not think Dungarvan is one of the listed harbours, it is under Waterford County Council.

Mr. Deasy

Not even under Part II?

Mr. P. Barry

No. It must be a listed harbour, and that is the purpose of this Act, namely, to add to the list of harbours named in the Act, the Bantry Harbour Commissioners. Dungarvan is not listed in the Act.

Mr. Deasy

Was it excluded as a result of the 1946 Act?

Mr. P. Barry

The Dungarvan harbour?

Mr. Deasy

Yes, with others such as Arklow and Wexford? It is not under the county councils. The harbour board consists of the urban council, which does not make sense. It is a commercial harbour and would have at least 50 ships entering it every year and discharging cargoes.

There seems to be a lack of concern about the personnel who make up these harbour boards. Senator Killilea said that interested bodies other than those which had nominations should be allowed representation on harbour boards such as the new one in Bantry. It can happen that there could be nine members on an urban council the majority of whom have no interest or concern for a harbour, with the result that the harbour could be neglected. Similarly, in regard to the proposed Bantry authority, the nominating bodies are too loosely framed. There are four members from the local authority, two members from the local chamber of commerce and two elected members representing shipping interests. Those are the only people who we know would be interested. There are three ministerial nominees, one of whom must represent labour interests. Some of the larger boards have 23 members. Is the Minister satisfied that the people on the harbour boards have knowledge and sufficient interest to be of benefit to the running of a harbour? I am not satisfied that this is the case. Too many of these people have no experience of shipping. The Minister should be more concerned with people who have maritime experience and could express views on how a harbour should be managed.

Our harbours are a natural source of prosperity, be it commercial and industrial developments, as a result of fishing or from a tourist aspect. In particular, we neglect our smaller harbours. There are hundreds of small harbours and piers built mainly in the last century which are now falling into the sea through lack of maintenance. As a result of the 1946 Act these small harbours are precluded from getting financial assistance for their upkeep. In most cases where major repairs are necessary the local authorities concerned are not in a financial position to carry out these repairs.

Dungarvan harbour in particular is in a sorry state. I am sure similar ones around the coast are in a similar situation. Has the Minister any plans to give assistance in any future legislation to enable them to be kept in a reasonable condition? Most of them could do with nominal maintenance: a lot of them need to be dredged. They suffer from a lack of depth of water. The financial state of local authorities does not enable them to be dredged.

The Minister has proposals for major development plans for harbours such as Cork and Limerick which are listed in Part I of the Schedule of the 1946 Act. Is he going to aid financially these harbours? I feel that all four that are listed in Part I of Schedule 1 should be given consideration. They are Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Dublin. No one should be given preferential treatment. All should be given similar consideration.

I welcome the Bill and hope that it leads to less oil spillages in Bantry Bay and a satisfactory deal for everybody concerned.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

I would like to thank the Seanad for the welcome it gave this Bill. We had a very interesting contribution from Senator Higgins. All Senators who spoke on this Bill referred to the oil spillages, as I did myself when introducing this Bill, saying that this was the primer that got this Bill before the Dáil and Seanad.

Senator Higgins used the unfortunate words "Do you remember the oil spillage?". I am sure the Senator knows the modern song "Do you remember, Jem?" Will I ever forget about the oil spillage in Bantry? I could wake up with nightmares about that and about a few other things that happened in the last three years.

Senators Dolan, Markey and Killilea also referred to that oil spillage. I said that in the context of the total amount of oil that passed through the terminal in Bantry Bay in the last eight years the spillage was quite small. As I have said in the Dáil and here, no spillage is acceptable. It is just not acceptable that people who handle oil in these large quantities should allow it to spill.

In all fairness to the Gulf Oil Company, of the two spillages which occurred in Bantry Bay, neither of them was directly under their control. But of course they had the over-seeing of the whole harbour area so that in that sense they were responsible.

The first spillage was on one of the tankers which was unloading in the port, and was caused by a human error. Somebody left a tap open and the oil just pumped out into the sea. The captain of the ship was the responsible person, but again the Gulf Oil Company had the overseeing authority.

The second spillage was of a different nature. Tugs push these large tankers. They move them into the berthing facilities. The fender across the top of one of the tugs had become broken so that the sharp bow of the tug was protruding through the fender, and a wave lifted the tug as she moved into the tanker and gashed the side of the tank. There is a separate tug company in Bantry which the Gulf Oil Company hire to move these tugs. But again Gulf had the over-seeing responsibility. They were the people I held responsible. In fairness to them, underneath them there was another company whom they trusted and it did not operate in a satisfactory manner.

Senator Killilea made the point about the representation for fishermen on the Board. That was answered by Senator Higgins when he said that the fishermen have the right as users of the port to be elected to the board provided they pay—the present Act lays down a minimum of £10 a year. I have the power to reduce that. If on the advice I get from Bantry that it needs to be reduced to allow the fishermen to vote themselves on to the Board then I will do that. In the immediate future besides the Gulf Oil Company the main users of the port will be the fishermen.

This Bill is merely adding Bantry Bay as a matter of some urgency to the list of harbours in Part II of the 1946 Act. It is not my intention that it should in any way be seen as a further Harbour Act. I am at the moment in my department having a whole review made of the 1946 and 1947 Acts. They are consolidating Acts in themselves, going back over 150 years; they consolidated the previous legislation. It is a very complex and difficult exercise and needs a lot of thought. Senator Deasy touched on this, perhaps unintentionally, when he said that any money that was given should be given to the Part I harbours. He said that money should be given to Dungarvan which also needs money badly, as do a lot of other harbours around the coast. That is quite true, but when harbours were built here, some dating back a couple of hundred years, these harbours were designed for different purposes in different days for different types of ships handling different merchandise. Any updating of the Harbours Act or any introduction of new Acts in relation to harbours or ports or any ports policy for this country is something that stares us straight in the face. It means shutting down some of the existing ports. Senator Markey hinted at the cost when he talked about the £1 million harbour at Warrenpoint—that is the type of money I am talking about. To repeat those facilities all along the coast of Ireland for a population of three million people would not be warranted. Therefore we would have to choose our locations and develop the harbours in different parts of the country, maybe existing harbours, maybe new harbours. It will be very difficult for people to accept, where there is at the moment a harbour which seems to be doing a fairly adequate trade to support the harbour board, that it will be cold Government policy to allow that harbour to die. That will happen, because we cannot afford to duplicate all around the coast from North Donegal to Carlingford Lough, and back to Dundalk, expensive harbour facilities, fighting with one another for the same type of trade and perhaps each one of them gearing their rates too high and asking the Government for grants so that they at least will be in the race for a relatively small cake.

Senator M.D. Higgins made the point that the harbours were designed in the old days as general cargo harbours handling all sort of things from needles to anchors. A lot of that trade has been enticed to and comes through Dublin since the last war. It is very much the biggest harbour in the country in that regard.

There is another field of activity opening up for harbours, and that is in the offshore natural resources in the oil and gas fields off the west coast and off the south coast. Harbours should be geared to take advantage of this if it should come their way. However, this involves the right of choice by the explorers and the exploiters of oil and gas, and whereas the Government would of course—any Government would—influence as far as possible the explorers and exploiters to use the nearest port to where they are drilling, perhaps for various reasons—perhaps because an organisation is set up in another port by the company involved in exploration— they would not want to do it.

Again these are fields for harbour boards that are exciting, hopefully very lucrative, not just for the economy of the harbour concerned but for the economy as a whole, and they will need the brains and the ingenuity and the co-operation not just of the Government and harbour board concerned but of the local authorities in the immediate vicinity and of the national development authorities in the vicinity of the harbour. A prime example of this is the estuarial authority in Shannon.

I cannot tell the House what will be in the legislation when it is drafted, but I can assure you they will have no further powers. This will be a somewhat similar Bill to the one I have here now except in combining in the Shannon area the harbour authorities that already exist there and establishing an estuarial authority for that region. There are four, one each in Kilrush, Tarbert, Foynes and Limerick. There are at least four harbour authorities there, and I want to combine them in one because it seems sensible.

There are local authorities involved there as well—Clare County Council, the Limerick Corporation and the Kerry County Council. For that estuarial authority to develop its full potential would need the co-operation of those local authorities and of course the Shannon Free Airport Development Company and other agencies of that sort in that area and at national level.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

Such an estuarial authority will not have a competitive advantage over an existing harbour authority?

Mr. P. Barry

No, it will not. It will have exactly the same powers, and the competitiveness in the estuarial authority at the moment seems to be centred on who will get what representation on the board, which has proven a very difficult problem to solve. I think we have the answer to that now.

I dealt with the fishermen. Senator M.D. Higgins mentioned the elected members of the board. Of course the county council can nominate. They do not have to nominate from among their own members, nor do the Bantry Town Commissioners who are the mentioned local authority in this case have to nominate from their own members. They can go outside and nominate fishermen on to the board if they think it is necessary. Finally if this does not happen I have the right to nominate.

Senator Killilea mentioned tourist interest as well in Bantry, and tourism in Bantry is an extremely important industry. However, the County Council would be conscious of this when they come to make their nominations, and the Bantry Town Commissioners, who in effect could be said to be near the tourist representative board themselves because they are in a town that depends heavily for its revenue on tourism.

Senator Dolan wanted to know where the money is going to come from to set up the harbour board. In fact under this section of the Bill they have the power to borrow money to start, and there is an income off Bantry Bay. The first thing they will do when they are set up is to take over Bantry Bay, and there is an income at present of £3,000 a year from that. That gives them a lift off, and then they will be entitled to borrow in their own right and the two local authorities concerned, the Bantry Town Commissioners and the Cork County Council, can guarantee them money.

He wanted to know also what part the Cork County Council play. In this sense the Cork County Council at the moment are the responsible authority for the Bantry pier, and they will pass that on to the new harbour authority and will be able to guarantee loans from that county council. The county council are initially the planning authority for the area that encloses the bay, so they will have a very important part to play with the harbour commissioners in the development of that area. That is the point I made earlier when I said that harbour boards should co-operate with the local authorities in this area.

Senator Deasy made the point about the composition of the Dungarvan Harbour Board. This is not one of the listed authorities under the 1946 Act, and as he said the harbour board in Dungarvan—and indeed in a number of other harbours of a similar size throughout the country— is composed of local town councillors and district councillors as the case may be, because they were essentially thought too small when the Act was drawn up. In 1946 it was considered too small, and that is over 30 years ago.

Mr. Deasy

Might I ask what are the harbours listed in Part II of the Schedule in the 1946 Act?

Mr. P. Barry

I can get you a list. Galway is one that is listed in it, Drogheda—

Mr. M.D. Higgins

To ask a related question, do powers under section 164 of the 1946 Act extend to list 2 ports? I think this meets Senator Deasy's question. Your powers under section 164 are powers to order a public inquiry into the maladministration of——

Mr. P. Barry

They would include Senator Deasy's port as well.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

If it is as he suggests, that his port is mismanaged.

Mr. P. Barry

I do not think he said that. What he said was that representation was necessarily of the type because they were elected by the townspeople and they would not necessarily be elected because of their interest in the harbour. Is that the point Senator Deasy is making?

Mr. Deasy

Yes.

Mr. P. Barry

It is very hard to know. The example is always given that a doctor should never be a Minister for Health, and maybe somebody with too close an interest in the harbour who had a maritime background should not be on a harbour board. But I do not agree with that. I think that people with managerial skills and labour skills should use their skills. I strongly hold the opinion that on the bulk of the boards in this country the elected representative should have a very strong voice whether he comes from the county council, urban council or any other way.

I think I have answered the points made, and I hope that it is recognised that this Bill does not intend or pretend to be any updating of the 1946 Act. That will come later. I do not want the Seanad to expect it to be inside this House this session or perhaps not even this year because of the amount of work that has to be done on it, and because of the amount of clear thinking about what the future holds for harbours which will have to be incorporated in the Bill. The next Bill I will be bringing to the Seanad in relation to harbours will be similar to this in relation to the Limerick estuarial authority. I hope it will be given as courteous and warm a welcome as this has. Go raibh maith agaibh.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.