Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

When the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, introduced the Bill last Thursday, he referred to the extensive consultation that had taken place as the 2005 report, on which the legislation is based, was being prepared. However, many of those who will be affected by the Bill and whose livelihoods depend on the facilities that are the subject of the Bill have claimed that there was not adequate consultation. That was certainly the case according to the people of Fenit who claim that they were not consulted but merely told what the changes would mean for them. They were given no opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to any alleged consultation that might have affected the drafting of the Bill. They contrast that lack of consultation in the preparation of the 2005 report that led to this legislation with the wide consultations conducted prior to completion of the KPMG 1999 report. One of the findings of that report was that local management of ports and harbours such as Fenit and Bantry, for example, was quite adequate and did not need to be changed. The case being made by those involved in Fenit is that the interests of the port would not be best served by the proposal in the Bill to bring Fenit Harbour under the same authority as Foynes. Their reasons for making this case have to do with the very different interests at stake.

Fenit has been a harbour and a port for the town of Tralee and surrounding areas for more than 130 years. It was the main port for the importation of all the merchandise during that period. Cargo ships came from all over the world bringing timber, tea, coal and chocolate crumb into the area. Exports such as potatoes and corn were shipped from the port. When I was a young man, I worked on the docks for a period. Most people in the area had a direct tie to the port which was important to the economy of the area. During the 1960s there was a massive decline in the business of the port because of the use of other forms of transportation to bring merchandise into rural Ireland and ports such as Fenit suffered significantly as a result. Were it not for those engaged in the fishing sector, business would have collapsed completely. I remember vividly how important the port was for the fishing industry in the 1960s and early 1970s when thousands of cran of herring were landed on a nightly basis and transported from Fenit. It was a significant source of employment for people of the area, as well as for those involved in the fishing sector. However, as a result of the sell-out of the fishing sector in the EEC negotiations at the time, Fenit suffered greatly and, as a consequence, went into what appeared at one stage to be an irreversible decline. Thankfully, there has been a transformation and the port has enjoyed considerable development in recent years, including the provision of a marina which can accommodate in excess of 100 yachts, with proposals to further extend the marina. Fenit is still an important fishing facility, both for local commercial fishermen and leisure fishing which is an important part of the local tourism industry and also serves a commercial purpose for local business.

Liebherr has continued to export cranes from Fenit to ports throughout the world on a monthly basis and effectively kept viable the commercial sector of the port. In contrast, Foynes is a heavy industrial port and it makes no sense to the people of Fenit to amalgamate the two ports under one authority. As Deputy Broughan stated last week in the House, there are questions about some of the decisions made at Foynes which would not fill the people of Fenit with confidence. The same case is being made by people in Bantry about the proposal to bring that harbour under the same authority as Cork Port and for similar reasons, given the different uses to which the two ports are put.

Fenit Port and Bantry are similar in many ways. In Fenit there is leisure, commercial fishing and cargo. A predominantly industrial port such as Foynes would not be in any way compatible with what happens in Fenit Port. That is why I intend to seek to amend the Bill at sections 18 and 19 and seek similar changes to Schedule 2 to remove the references to Fenit and Bantry so the two ports would remain as they are in terms of management and overall supervision and that the Tralee and Fenit Pier and Harbour Commissioners and the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners are retained. There is a reference that this would not take place without consultation, but it would be far preferable for me and other Deputies from those areas that this would be removed completely. That view seems to be generally shared around the coast in that local democratically elected representatives ought to be involved as they have been traditionally in the port and harbour authorities.

This Bill proposes to centralise that authority and in that way remove any input from local representatives from, for example, the Fenit or Bantry areas. The authority that replaces them and which does not have that representation cannot be expected to represent those local and particular interests in the same way. The Bill proposes to reduce the level of involvement by workers' representatives on the authorities.

The Tralee and Fenit Pier and Harbour Board comprises management, workers, local representatives and members of the Tralee Chamber of Commerce. It works very well. The management plan sent to the Department and the way the port has been revitalised and transformed are testament to the work the harbour board has done. If that were taken away and put under the authority of the Foynes Harbour Board it would be detrimental to a small port such as Fenit. It would also be detrimental to the service it provides, including a lifeboat service and the fact that it is a very safe harbour for people to come in and out of. There are some very interesting and ambitious but achievable plans to extend the marina and provide a further amenity and service to the coastal areas and the local economy. That is of major importance and cannot be overlooked.

In general terms regarding port and harbour facilities, it is vital to enhance port capacity as part of a strategy to encourage indigenous industry linked to exports. One of the issues that emerged from the report on farming and fishing in the western counties, which was adopted only yesterday by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was the need to focus on local job creation, through the Leader programmes for example, which have had a high level of success in creating locally sustainable jobs. The success of those local and sustainable jobs far outnumbers that which comes in from the IDA in our areas. As part of that, it is necessary that local fish processors, for example, as well as other businesses have the facilities available to move their produce quickly, and local ports have a central role to play in that. To develop a sustainable and viable fishing sector it is necessary to use local harbours and ports so they can complement onshore investment in developing a processing sector that will be also able to complement what happens at sea.

If there were a serious plan to develop the domestic fish processing sector rather than continue with the current high level of exports of unprocessed fish, there also needs to be the capacity in ports. Unfortunately however, the impact of recent budgetary changes, apart from the impact of the overall economic downturn, have exacerbated the situation. For example, the cut in funding for renewable energy projects will not only have an immediate financial impact on those concerned but will also inhibit the development of future local renewable energy projects. In the current climate would the turbine built by the fishing co-op at Burtonport be adequately supported? I doubt it. It is used to power the local fish processing plant and thereby create jobs and exports, which is where the local port facilities come into play. Such thinking, focused on the creation of sustainable local jobs tied to local resources and local infrastructure, is required rather than the current obsession with making short-term savings that will, in the long-term, impose a bigger burden on the State through social welfare and so on.

There are other aspects to this Bill on land acquisition by An Bord Pleanála which concern me but overall, if these issues I have raised can be addressed, the Bill has positive aspects and must be supported. I compliment many aspect of it. However, similar circumstances surround Bantry, which is not in my constituency, and Fenit, which is, and I have intimate and first-hand knowledge and experience of this. I hope, as the Bill passes through its various Stages, this will be taken into account. Above all, I hope the references to them will be removed entirely from the Bill, despite the implication that nothing will take place without consultation. I have my doubts about that and that is why I hope the Minister will take all that on board.

See this speech in context