Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I am glad to hear what the Minister has said, but I am also confused. This is what I have been talking about. I could expand on what Senator Cummins has said. I will not discuss Chile, but I could discuss France and Spain which have done equally well and have generated a lot of employment in the mussel sector. I could quote facts and figures all day.

Senator Cummins spoke about the parameters and limits of ports. There is an unintended consequence here which is connected to section 18, which I will not go into right now. It has been suggested that Cork Port should take over Bantry. In that context, people want to know the extent of such a takeover. As it stands, Bantry Harbour board covers approximately 95% of Bantry Bay. The small area that is excluded is in the inner harbour of Bere Island which has a separate authority. If one were just discussing the inner harbour, one could argue that it concerns a railway pier, the existing pier and the very valuable foreshore which was once owned by Bantry House and was bought out by the harbour board. It might also concern parts of Whiddy Island. However, we are not clear whether it concerns, for example, the 20 trawlers which come trawling down the bay when the herring or sprat is in, or in pursuit of the very valuable prawns. The mussel industry has moved to a place called Gort na Cille where I was born and raised. Would that area be affected?

Bantry Bay extends inland for 23 miles and has an average width of eight miles, which is a phenomenal size. At the centre, its channel is 60 fathoms deep, a fathom being 6 ft. or approximately 2 m. Where are the controls over that area? It has been suggested that the rules would apply only to the inner harbour with a limit of Rabbit Island on one side and the bank between Whiddy Island and the mainland on the other side. I am quite certain, however, that the rules will not just apply to that area. The issue is much broader than it first appears, which is why I am glad the Minister of State has agreed to revisit it.

I do not wish to be in anyway derogatory towards the Minister of State who has a grá for west Cork. However, somebody in an office somewhere has decided that it would be a nice thing to organise a shotgun wedding between Bantry and Cork Port without thinking of the possible consequences. This relates to the issue of planning, to which Senator Cummins referred. Area plans and coastal zone management plans are important issues. There was an office in Bantry that was dedicated to dealing with the coastal zone management of the peninsulas, including Sheep's Head, Mizen Head, Bantry Bay, Bere Island and so forth, although I am not sure it is still operational.

There are proposals here which might have unintended consequences. We all have seen the unintended consequences in recent days of a very simple proposal that was made a week ago. Had the Cabinet members and others involved seen the future, the matter would have been dealt with very differently. I am concerned that we could have a fiasco on our hands with regard to Bantry Bay. I do not wish to be overly parochial as I am aware there are other areas of the country that might be affected, and indeed Fenit has already been mentioned in that regard.

I am glad the Minister of State has agreed to re-examine this issue, although he has not made any firm promises. I am seeking clarity and an assurance that the issues I have raised, including fish farming, salmon cages off Gearhies, the mussel industry, the abalone industry, scallop and clam farming are taken into account. We must not kill the goose that laid the golden egg. This Bill raises issues of enormous concern, not just the question of the shotgun wedding that is being proposed. I am concerned that someone will ask me in the future if I was asleep when this Bill was going through the Seanad and how come I did not realise the consequences of the proposals. I am not saying the proposals are malignant in their content, but I am not convinced they are benign either.