Seanad debates

Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

4:00 pm

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

We covered much of the ground on this issue on the last occasion. I agree that local authority members have served port companies in good stead over the years. The make-up of most harbour boards comprises a cross-section of community involvement. For example, of the 11 members of the board of Bantry Port, two are from the county council, usually from the local electoral area containing the port, and two are from the town council, thus providing an extra layer of local democracy. The Chambers of Commerce of Ireland would usually select two members, as would the Irish Ports Association. The Minister selects three appointees to the board in respect of which there sometimes have been accusations of cronyism and so on. However, the Minister's appointees had to include a trade union member, who would be unlikely to be a member of my party. Therefore, the make-up of the boards was tightly constrained. I was pleased at one point in my political career to be appointed to the board of Bantry Harbour. I regretted having to resign in 2004, with the ending of the dual mandate, because I enjoyed my time on the board.

Will the Minister outline the financial savings to be made from the proposals set out in the Bill? The large commercial port companies have their own arrangement and are normally separate legal entities with a degree of independence. I made the point already and do not wish to do so ad infinitum that the proposal that Cork Harbour should take over Bantry Port represents a shotgun wedding which may not work out. We could end up with an undemocratic situation where Bantry Port would at most have one representative, even though it is located 60 or 70 miles from Cork. In the case of Rosslare and New Ross, for example, Drogheda and Dublin or even Waterford and Dublin, the distance would be much less than in the case of Cork and Bantry. I fail to see the logic of this proposal. When I entered politics in 1985 we had local health committees and a Southern Health Board. The Health Service Executive now wants to revert to having local regionalised offices in places like the Cork-Kerry region. It has learned from its mistakes and will in this regard be making a U-turn on policy grounds.

I am glad the Bill provides that the Minister will have the power to consult recognised trade unions and so on. However, I have grave concerns in regard to this issue, which has been debated at length. I believe little saving will be gained from this proposal. Historically, local public representatives have had their finger on the pulse, be that in respect of Shannon-Foynes, Fenit, Bantry or Dingle. We are being denuded of local democracy and I am not sure this is good. We should remember the reason some of the harbour boards were set up. I am speaking in this regard of the role of public representatives and others on these boards.

Many people do not know the reason Bantry harbour board was set up. In the 1970s, there were three or four major oil spillages, some of which were the worst in the world, with enormous ecological and environmental impacts. One can imagine the severity of world focus if this happened in 2008. Following these events the then Minister, former Deputy Peter Barry, established the Bantry Harbour Board to take control of the situation. I referred earlier to the various bodies represented on that board. Even though the board had been established, it took the catalyst of the Costello report, arising from the Whiddy Island disaster, on which I will speak at some length later, to give it teeth. This did not happen until the early or mid-1990s and the matter had been left languishing for some time.

The cost of local authority members on these boards is minuscule. The experience, wisdom and local knowledge lost as a result of this proposal will be immense. I will give an example, which may be parochial to my colleague opposite, Senator Paddy Burke. A port authority or harbour board comprising local and town councillors, trade union representatives and chambers of commerce, be it from Westport or wherever is the most local region, might have prevented the shenanigans and drawn-out, difficult scenes in north Mayo in regard to Shell to Sea — I do not wish to take sides in the matter. I strongly believe that local and trade union representation is important. Perhaps we are seeing in this Bill a new policy direction in respect of local authority members. They are being told, "Lie down, Fido, stay under the table and do not bark."

We represent councillors and local authority members and our voices should be heard. I am in the difficult situation of being a Member on the Government side. However, I want to be heard and to put on record my disillusionment, disappointment and dismay at the approach being taken in this area. I believe we are being power foolish and penny wise. Historically, local authority members have served us well and that has not been acknowledged in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister of State will acknowledge the tremendous work done by many town, county and city councillors down through the years. They have made an enormous contribution to port companies and marine life in general.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.