Michael McCarthy (Labour)

People may be of the view that there is nothing much left to be said following Senator O'Donovan's contribution. However, I wish to place this matter in context. Amendments Nos. 7 and 10 to 12, inclusive, are grouped for the purposes of discussion. My name, along with that of Senator O'Donovan, is appended to some of those amendments. I will certainly not repeat the extremely salient points made by the Senator.

In respect of section 18, the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:

Under the Harbours Act 1996, provision is made for the transfer of harbour authorities to local authority control by Ministerial order in cases where there is little or no commercial traffic.

The Ports Policy Statement provides that in cases where there is significant commercial traffic, consideration will be given to bringing the relevant harbours under the control of a port company. This is relevant to two harbour authorities: Bantry Bay and Tralee and Fenit.

The amendment I have tabled proposes the deletion of the new subsection (2)(a), which states:

The Minister may by order appoint a day as the transfer day for the purposes of this section in respect of Bantry Bay Harbour and, with effect from that day, the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners are dissolved.

In fairness, Senator O'Donovan has been championing the cause in respect of this issue since long before the legislation was initiated. He tried to encourage some element of consultation between the Minister, the Department and Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. I have in my possession a letter addressed to and received by the chairman of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners on 9 September 2008. It states:

Dear Chairman

I refer to your letter dated 21 August 2008 requesting a meeting with members of Bantry Bay Harbour Commission. [That is not an unrealistic request on the part of any group.]

As you are aware, Bantry Bay Harbour Commission operates under the Harbours Act 1946. Policy in relation to such harbour authorities is as set out in the Ports Policy Statement published in 2005. [That was the policy statement in respect of which no one, not least local authorities or Bantry Bay harbour commissioners, was consulted.] This indicates that the continued operation of the harbour authorities, under the outdated provisions of the Harbour Act 1946, is unsustainable on the grounds of good corporate governance.

I do not believe anyone disagrees with the notion of good corporate governance. If, however, the dismantling of local government is a direct implication of good corporate governance, then we should consider what is meant by the latter. In order to be good corporate governors, must we abolish local authorities? The letter to which I refer also states:

You are also aware that my Department is of the view that the best way forward for Bantry Bay Harbour is amalgamation with the Port of Cork Company. This would help the future development of the harbour by giving it access to the best regional port management expertise and marketing skills. The Port of Cork Company is waiting to finalise a due diligence process into an amalgamation with Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. I understand that a land registry issue that has delayed completion of the due diligence report is close to resolution.

Once the due diligence report has been completed, officials from my Department will arrange a meeting with representatives of the harbour commission as soon as is convenient.

The latter statement represents the crux of the letter.

As already stated, the letter in question was received by Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners on 9 September. We are engaged in a debate on Committee Stage of the legislation but there still has not been any contact. Various commitments were given to the people of Bantry that such contact would occur. This is all relevant to Senator O'Donovan's amendment, which makes specific reference to consultation.

Far be it from me to lecture anyone in the Bill's Office, but I am of the view that the amendment I am discussing should also have been grouped with Nos. 8, 9 and 13 to 17, inclusive, which all refer to Bantry Bay. It is my intention, therefore, to take this opportunity to say as much as possible in respect of the latter amendments. It might be time efficient if I were to do so.