Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I am still talking about consultation, an issue critical to section 18. The section refers to the transfer of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners and Tralee and Fenit Pier Harbour Commissioners, etc. which is my major difficulty. There is a harbour in Bantry that it is proposed will be transferred and amalgamated with Cork Port. Amendment No. 7 refers to consultation, which is the critical axe to grind on this issue. If consultation were to take place, certain issues might be ironed out. There is great concern locally that this legislation will be enacted without prior consultation, although such consultation has been promised several times. All politics is local.

I have no axe to grind with the Port of Cork Company with which I had discussions recently on the Cork-Swansea ferry issue. Its representatives were very forthcoming and there is a good working relationship between Cork Port and Bantry regarding Whiddy Island and other issues. While this may be acknowledged, the cordial relationship does not mean that one port must succumb under legislation to a takeover by another port. It is a matter of consultation. I do not want to labour the issue too long but I ask the Minister of State if there was consultation with Tralee and Fenit Pier Harbour Commissioners regarding amalgamation with Shannon Foynes Port Company. Was it premature? We have been talking about how Bantry Bay harbour might evolve and develop for many years. Consultation is critical.

The amendment was tabled by Senator Donohoe. Hitherto, there has been a lack of consultation. We see the demise of the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners and the elected representatives who were on the board. This is wrong. There may have been a possibility of quid pro quo if the matter had been approached correctly. When referring to consultation or the lack of it, I am considering a valuable asset in the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners and the port and the transfer of its autonomy to the Port of Cork Company.

Seven or eight reports over the years touched on the Bantry situation, among others, and the thinking process and policy that was prevalent until 1994 rightfully suggested that this should take place, with or without consultation. Bantry Bay harbour board was a lame duck, with no powers, no way of raising revenue and no teeth. It was little more than a talking shop. Over time, spurred on by certain recommendations of the Costello report arising from the Whiddy disaster, which involved consultation between the Department with responsibility for fisheries and various ports, great powers were given to Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. Because of its capacity, which is limited in international or international terms, Bantry has emerged as a leading light as a small port. In the past 12 years, bar one, it has made a financial profit and carried out important functions vis-À-vis Whiddy Island.

I cannot but expand somewhat on the issue of consultation. Some think of Bantry as Whiddy Island but there are diverse activities in the Bantry Bay and port area. There is a limited amount of marine tourism, the well-known Whiddy Island terminal, Whiddy islanders, inshore fishermen and aquaculture people. Has there been consultation with all these people? People may ask why there should be but what bugs me is that Bantry has been designated as a tourist hub in the past year. This has significance because Fáilte Ireland, through the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism, has decided that Bantry has significant tourism related activity within the harbour. One hopes much money will be spent in the general area. Major problems exist with the port. Some are basic, such as the extension of the pier and dredging. The Chair may think I am wandering but I am touching on the provisions of section 18.

There is a problem with the provisions in section 18. There has been no consultation with many of those involved. Will the Minister of State indicate whether there has been consultation on this section, or on the Bill, with Cork County Council which owns the pier in Bantry? The harbour board owns the railway pier which it purchased at market value from Bantry Town Council. Have the harbour board and Bantry Town Council been consulted or do they need to be consulted? Perhaps I am missing the point. While the harbour board has an excellent working relationship with Cork County Council and the Department, it complained vigorously that there was no proper consultation on the aspects of the Bill that affect its port. It is very exercised about that issue.

One might ask why consult Bantry Town Council. There was a railway to Bantry until 1963 — I have vivid memories of seeing it as a child. The railway pier was eventually handed over by CIE to the town council in good faith. For many years the railway pier was not used, although it was very much used in the days when the railway went to Bantry. Eventually Bantry Harbour Board decided to purchase the railway pier for what was then termed "the market value". It also purchased foreshore rights and so on. That is an asset we now have. I presume the board got the Department's support and imprimatur in doing that. It is important from a development point of view that the town council does not own one pier while Cork County Council owns another one. The Earl of Bantry owned the foreshore rights. Were these bodies consulted? It is unusual that Cork County Council owns the main pier and has responsibility for its upkeep and so on.

Was the Central Fisheries Board consulted? It has traditional rights in Bantry Harbour. A case was taken by somebody to stop some development because, in the past, he had rights to mend nets in certain sections of the inner harbour.

Was there consultation with the people living on Whiddy Island? I know it is a small island with not too many inhabitants. The Minister of State might enlighten me as to whether there is a need for consultation. The Costello report was critical. It was an excellent report arising from an unfortunate tragedy and it cost the taxpayer €500,000. Another report, which is due, will probably cost the taxpayer, directly or indirectly, over €1 billion. Some 50 lives were lost in the Whiddy Island tragedy.

I am concerned for the people living on Whiddy Island. Not too long ago an elderly woman fell on the island and broke her leg. Usually when that happens, one calls an ambulance, which drives up to one's door, and one is taken away. However, there is no access for an ambulance on Whiddy Island. Eventually, the woman was put on a stretcher and put on a boat. It was low tide when they got to Bantry and she had to be carried across five boats, which was degrading. That happened five or seven years ago and I was appalled.

If there was another disaster on Whiddy Island, how would we get on? For a number of years the airstrip in Bantry has been used to transport vehicles to and from the island. It is not the most ideal scenario but it works. In an emergency, there is no barge on stand-by to take a fire tenderer, an ambulance or a doctor to the island.

One cannot lose sight of the fact that islanders have rights. Perhaps in this instance one might say they should not be consulted, that Bantry Harbour Board was set up under a certain Act and that we, as legislators, should ignore everyone and do what is right, convenient and so on, but I have a different view. The local authority also bought houses on the island.

Bantry Harbour Board recently completed a landing facility on Whiddy Island with the help and support of the Department, which I went to see. The board also owns some property on the island, and not before time. A slipway was constructed at a cost of less than €1 million, although I am open to correction. This is a wonderful development. I believe the Minister of State visited recently to inspect and open it. This is all about consultation.

On the shore side, adjacent to the Abbey cemetery on Whiddy Island, a link is proposed. There is no point having a lovely slipway on the island if when one reaches the shore, one cannot get off. This roll on-roll off possibility is fantastic and I hope it can proceed. Planning has been received and foreshore rights have been obtained. These are positive developments where consultation is important.

If this Bill is passed, people will say it might not be implemented for four or five years but I hope it is implemented in my lifetime. In regard to section 18 coming into play — Senator Donohoe's amendment No. 7 refers to it — I have grave reservations that the appropriate consultation has not taken place.

I mentioned the size of Bantry Bay. There is a multi-million euro aquaculture industry in Bantry Bay. Many hectares of water are licensed for the purpose of mussel line development and there are salmon cages out by Eyries and more closer to Bere Island, which are within the Bantry Bay remit, if my geography is correct. Has the aquaculture industry been consulted? I raised this with some people involved in aquaculture who told me they have serious concerns

I refer to the handing over of Bantry Bay and Bantry Harbour as proposed in this Bill. I say to the Minister of State, with the greatest respect, that it is not only about the Whiddy Island situation. There is Whiddy Island and Whitegate, and perhaps it would make much sense for them to form a team and that the commercial aspects would be monitored by Cork port.

There are many ancillary operations around the bay. On Whiddy Island, licences have been granted for the development and growth of scallop farming. In the inner harbour in Bantry, people dig for welks. People have traditional rights and would have us in the High Court in the morning if we interfered with those rights in any way. I am not saying we will interfere with their rights, but have they been consulted? When in season, people dig a bucket of clams or periwinkles and make a few bob.

The Cork Harbour and Port Authority is a huge commercial set-up and Bantry is a hybrid of different developments in aquaculture and tourism. The development of Bantry Bay as a purely commercial port will never stand. I have always argued that one must allow for Whiddy Island and commercial activity, which has survived together despite some difficulties. Aquaculture and inshore fishing have survived. Many people still fish extensively for shrimp in the inner harbour and around Whiddy Island. They also fish for lobster. Despite the ban on drift net fishing, draft net fishing is still intact for the estuary of the River Wad.

As a representative of this area I am concerned that we are proceeding with this legislation. I have tabled amendments on transferring Bantry, and I return to the whole area of consultation. I have the utmost respect for the Minister of State but I urge him to park the Bill after today and, as a gesture of goodwill, the Minister of State or the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, should meet the relevant port authority and perhaps a county manager for west Cork or the town council to consult on this issue as we are dealing with consultation under section 7.

This is a political, not a departmental, matter. On Bantry Harbour Board there are two or three county councillors and two town councillors, a trade union representative and representatives of the port association as well as three nominees of the Minister of State's predecessor. I presume the board members were governed by the 1946 Act. Without affecting the thrust of the Bill, would there be merit in such consultation taking place?

I was at three or four meetings, in Dublin and Bantry, where Ministers and Ministers of State gave clear commitments. The issue of publishing or tabling legislation suggesting Bantry Bay Harbour would be taken over by Cork was raised. That political commitment has not been honoured. I know members of the Cork Port company who have expressed the view that they are surprised — I will not name them — at the shotgun approach taken here. The approach seems to be shoot first and ask questions afterwards. That is not good enough. We need to sit back from the brink on this and deal with some of the issues concerning Bantry.

It all comes down to consultation, or the lack of it. As far as I am aware, the chief executive of Cork Port and the chairman of Bantry Port have not had meaningful negotiations on this issue. That is similar to the Government, when the discussions on Northern Ireland were taking place, saying it would make a declaration and promulgate that Northern Ireland, as a unit, would be gone and a new free state or republic would be declared. If that happened there would be outright war. Sensitive negotiations took place. We have not gone beyond the point of redemption.

Bantry Bay is the second finest bay in the world. It has huge potential and we should not denude the people in the greater Bantry area who use the port for leisure, pleasure, fishing, tourism in Garnish Island, yachting and other marine activities. There has been a lack of consultation. I am speaking ad nauseam on this section of the Bill, but I feel strongly about it. Senator Donohoe also mentioned this point.

I do not know what is right or wrong with consultation. This issue has been before the people in Bantry and the harbour board for many years. It has also been before the council. I spent many lengthy nights discussing participation by local authority members. One meeting, debating the future of Bantry, ran from 6.30 p.m. until 1.30 a.m. The possibility of Cork Port taking us over was discussed and we voted 11-0 that that should not take place. Some of those members have now left.

There was a proposal that Cork County Council should take us over and I held the minority view that that should be the case. The vote was 9-2. I understood the debate. I have my reasons, one of which is that the then county manager gave a commitment that if Cork County Council took us over it would spend €1 million or €2 million on the harbour development. That should not be sneered at. We seem to have walked away from that.

Another issue is that of corporatisation. We want, like other larger ports, such as Cork, Foynes, Dundalk and New Ross, to set up a company and stand on our own two feet. There was strong consultation on this and I was to the fore, particularly with the Department and the then Minister in the lead-up to the 2002 general election. We came within 48 hours of Bantry Port being corporatised, and were it not for a technical problem in Bantry that would have been done. The principle was agreed, but we seem to have rolled back from that.

Corporatisation has its own problems. If one becomes a corporate entity, one must stand on one's own two feet and not go to the Department or the Minister with the begging bowl. One cannot lightly brush aside the democratic view of elected or appointed people on boards. I am very worried that the consultation process has been less than transparent and adequate as far as Bantry is concerned. Perhaps that has been politically driven, but if something is not broken, why go to the trouble of fixing it?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.