Seanad debates

Wednesday, 22 October 2008

Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008: Committee Stage

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I will be brief. On the power of borrowing and providing more flexibility to port companies, we are talking about the big commercial port companies. What is the merit of this section? Does it envisage that port companies would borrow, possibly beyond what they can afford to repay, particularly in these difficult times of contracting economies, recessions etc.? For example, if Shannon Foynes Port Company, Waterford, Cork and possibly Dublin ports have to borrow, am I correct in saying they have to get prior consent or are those big corporate ports so strong that they are a separate legal entity and do not have to get consent, be it written or verbal, or go through any procedures? I am somewhat concerned in that regard.

I realise I am looking ahead somewhat but section 18 envisages the demise of Bantry port. When I was a member of Bantry port there was a proposal to borrow some money in a plan that was presented to the Department. I believe it was approved, even though the project did not go ahead. Does the same apply in this case? In other words, do the bigger ports, such as Cork, that are doing very well and have huge commercial plans to develop and expand have to get prior consent from the Minister at every turn or only when it involves major borrowings? If Cork port wanted to borrow €1 billion to expand its proposed development — the figure would be much larger in the case of Dublin port — would it be necessary for it to get written consent or is it envisaged that the existing arrangement would be continued? Is this a new proposal to the effect that the Department is giving more flexibility? I wonder is it giving more or less flexibility. The Minister of State might expand on that question, if not today, on Report Stage.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.