Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

Section 18 provides an enabling power for a ministerial order to be made which could permit the transfer of responsibility for Bantry Bay to the port of Cork and the transfer of responsibility for Tralee and Fenit harbours to the Shannon Foynes company. The amendment seeks to insert a provision to ensure that any ministerial order relating to Bantry or Tralee must be subject to public consultation and would have regard to that consultation.

The proposal is to include an enabling provision. The proposal to do that has been the subject of extensive and lengthy consultation over almost ten years. As I mentioned on the last occasion, a review of the State's regional harbours in 1999 proposed, with regard to Bantry and Tralee, that a merger with a relevant port company should be explored to maximise the commercial potential at each harbour. The 1999 report was the subject of an extensive local, regional and national consultative process. Following that there was a high level review of the State's commercial ports which was published in 2003. That also proposed that a merger between these two harbours and a relevant port company would best suit their continued development. The high level review was also subject to an extensive and wide ranging consultative process. All this fed into the development of the Government's ports policy statement which was published in 2005.

It is clear that the proposals in regard to Bantry and Tralee have already been subject to consultation at all levels. Their inclusion in the Bill is not an attempt to force any type of shotgun wedding on the two harbours. It is the logical conclusion to a consultative process which has taken place over eight or ten years. That has been recognised by people on the ground. In the 2006 annual report of Bantry Harbour commissioners the chairman said that once the due diligence report was completed the commissioners should take the opportunity to discuss the matter of amalgamation further. That is the current position. Nobody has back-tracked on any commitment given in a letter. The situation is clear.

This is an enabling provision, although Members seem to avoid this issue almost immediately. It deals with something that could happen. Obviously, prior to such an order being made it would be common sense that further consultation with local interest groups would take place. That could include the various bodies that were mentioned during the debate, such as the county council, town council, inland fisheries, islanders, fishermen and everybody up to Uncle Tom Cobley. The question is about the consultation that was always promised. I am saying it is common sense that it would take place. I fully accept that it would be very foolish to do something without consultation. The question is whether Members accept that guarantee or wish to see it formalised in some way or other.

The crucial issue is that this is enabling legislation. At present, there are a couple of options that can be taken with regard to the harbour commissioners. The legislation is just broadening the options. Only one option would be taken. One could establish a private company in respect of any of these harbours or transfer control of them to the relevant port company or local authority. The ports policy statement indicated that the continued operation of the country's regional harbours, under the 1946 Act, is not really sustainable into the future and it is a case of trying to handle that.

The 1996 Act provides for the transfer of regional harbours to local authority control by means of a ministerial order. In response to a question from Senator O'Donovan, that could have been done at any time since 1996. However, it would not have been done on the stroke of a pen. The enabling power has been there to transfer any of the harbours to a local authority or to set up a private company, as has been done in several cases. In any of the cases where it has been done, however, it was not done at the stroke of a pen. While the legislation may allow it to be done at the stroke of a pen, one has ample consultation with all relevant parties before it is done. Just because one has the power does not mean one exercises that power willy nilly. Common sense comes into it, apart from what is contained in the legislation.

The Harbours Act 1996 was subject to a wide-ranging and extensive consultation process. It is important to note that any transfer made under that Act has been subject to wide-ranging consultation with all the relevant parties and different models have emerged. Among the harbours that have been transferred, Sligo Harbour is one of those located in a large population centre. In that case, the commissioners who were in place prior to transfer and a committee of interested parties is still liaising with the county council and has an input on relevant issues. It was not a case of abolishing a board and not taking its views into account on an ongoing basis. Different models can emerge from the consultation process whereby local interest groups can agree to have an input, not under the original legislation but as part of whatever is agreed. That is what the consultation process is all about. One cannot provide for all that in legislation because different models emerge in different places based on specific circumstances and needs. The 1996 Act also provides for the establishment of a private company in respect of the regional harbours, although that clause has never been utilised anywhere.

It is true that the Department previously indicated to Bantry Bay commissioners that further consultation would take place between all sides upon completion of the due diligence process by the harbour commissioners. I listened with interest to the commitments referred to by the Senator and the letters he read out, but it was widely known that all the consultations were due to take place after the due diligence process had been completed. That process has not been completed yet, although all parties are doing their best in that regard. The foreshore issue has been successfully addressed and the due diligence report will be completed very soon.

The Senator may argue that the consultation process to which I referred was high level stuff related to overall policy, but it was always intended that the specific issues relating to the Bantry transfer, how it would be handled and managed and the processes and procedures that would be adopted to implement the dream into the future, would have to be agreed between the parties. That is common sense and that remains the position. All the necessary consultation will take place.

This Bill simply includes an additional enabling provision to add to the other enabling provision in the 1996 Act that could have been used any time in the past 12 years. Bantry Bay could have been transferred to the local authority, although not at the stroke of a pen, as Senator O'Donovan suggested. Some harbours have been transferred to local authority control under the 1996 Act.

The position is that when the due diligence report is completed the consultation process will begin. It is wrong to suggest that there has been no contact between the Bantry Bay Harbour commissioners and the Department. Meetings take place on an ongoing basis to deal with various matters, including day-to-day issues such as the remedial works and so forth. Formal discussion and consultation has not taken place because the due diligence report has not been finalised. However, all the consultation required is bound to take place.

To return to the amendment, it is a case of Senators either accepting that this is the way things are and that common sense dictates that consultation will take place or formalising it in the Bill. If the Senators wish to formalise the process in the Bill, I am prepared to consider that. I would have to examine the wording and speak to the Parliamentary Counsel on the issue, but if Senators want the process to be formalised, we can consider that. Consultations were always going to happen. I have not been there for the history of 50 years of trust or mistrust and must accept what others say in that regard. However, if Senators want the process to be formalised, I am prepared to look at that in principle. The amendment proposes to lay down in legislation that there be a formal consultation process prior to any transfer, whether it be to the local authority or the port of Cork. In such a formal process, everybody can have their say, including Whiddy Islanders, fishermen, inland fisheries representatives, town commissioners, county councillors and so forth. Everyone can have an input, whether through formal submissions or round table discussions. I am prepared to accept the principle of the amendment tabled and to revert to Senators at a later date on the matter.

I stress again that the necessary consultation would always have taken place. Senators O'Donovan and McCarthy spoke about the hopes, aspirations and dreams of the people of the Bantry Bay area. We would all like to see those dreams materialise but it is a question of how we help areas such as Bantry to realise their full potential. We must determine how best to give a small harbour board, like the one in Bantry, the management expertise to develop the facility.

There has been no back-tracking and no withdrawal of a commitment given. Senators referred to other harbours in the same area, including Baltimore and Kinsale. It is proposed that they too will eventually be transferred to the local authority after local consultations. A number of other harbours will also be transferred. I signed an order a number of weeks ago for Moy Harbour near Ballina to be transferred to the control of the local authority. There was ample consultation involving different interest groups, some of which are bigger than others. This happened with several groups and the transfer process is ongoing. It applies whether harbours deal with a level of commercial freight such as the harbours at Bantry and Fenit. The suggestion in the policy document was to transfer control of the harbours to a port company. Another suggestion was to put them under the aegis of the local authority. There will be no lack of consultation. All commitments given relating to consultation would have been realised after due diligence was carried out. This legislation serves to add another option or enabling provision, which is merely another choice. The proposed change could happen subject to other types of consultation, but it adds to the option that has been in place since 1996. There is nothing bigger or stronger than that and all consultation would take place anyway.

I revert to the amendment under discussion. I accept the principle that the consultation process should be specified in legislation and am prepared to return next time with an amendment to take account of it. However, consultation would always have taken place and would always have been sufficient. No one can foresee how many different groups will have an interest in a given matter. I have heard it suggested that different groups may seek the option to make a submission, but I cannot force people to do so or to raise the matter. I am aware of the suggestions made and it seems right and proper that the opportunity is provided to any of those local groups who seek to make a submission, which would have happened. It happened in cases where other harbours transferred to the local authority without consultation having a statutory basis. The amendment specifies a statutory basis for consultation and I am prepared to examine this and revert to the House. I am not against the idea in principle.