Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

If that is the pressure being put on me, I have another way out of it by calling a vote and then taking a stance. However, I gave a commitment yesterday that I would not do that today. The Minister of State should not tempt fate because I feel very strongly about this. I will not be silenced, a Chathaoirligh, with all due respect. I am responding to the points made by the Minister of State, with which I do not agree. I do not doubt his sincerity.

Why did the Government not wait to publish this Bill until the due diligence report was complete? I believe the report has virtually been completed anyway. Part of the delay in the report was due to work done in good faith. If the Bantry Harbour commissioners wanted to be flippant and refuse to get involved, they could have done so, but they still got involved. The situation regarding the foreshore rights was held up due to legal reasons. That registration of title is now complete and has been communicated to the Department. The Port of Cork Company is aware of this. We are now discussing the issue of due diligence, whereas I had only spoken of the consultation issue, so I am not repeating myself. The due diligence report was raised by the Minister of State. If due diligence is pivotal to section 7 of the Bill and to the purpose of forcing Bantry into a marriage of convenience with the Port of Cork Company, let us talk about it now.

We are being blamed for the delay of due diligence, but why should we not let the process take place? If we are that close to its completion, we should look at what it will deliver. The due diligence report is an engagement between the Port of Cork Company and Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners to find some common ground on certain issues. We are not at war with the Port of Cork Company. We do not want to go to war with the Minister of State or the Department. I can quote monetary commitments that were given to Bantry that were not honoured, for whatever reason. I have no problem with due diligence, but this Bill should not take priority before the due diligence report is complete. That is wrong. Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners were asked three years ago to go ahead with due diligence, and that is more or less complete.

Senator McCarthy read out a letter of 9 May 2007. The final paragraph states: "An early meeting between the Commissioners and the Department would facilitate the process, and we would be happy to arrange such a meeting." However, I have been told that such a meeting did not take place. Yet we are being asked to trust a Department when in my lifetime we have only seen neglect in the inner harbour of Bantry. The dredging of the inner harbour and the extension of the pier are very important. Bantry has no potential without either of those developments, even though the Minister of State spoke about maximising the harbour's potential. Neither of these developments has been dealt with in the past 30 or 40 years.

The letter I read out referred to Mr. Bill O'Donnell and his dream, but sometimes dreams must become a reality. We have been fobbed off too many times about commitments and reports. Some of the reports date from the 1980s or early 1990s, when the board in Bantry had no teeth. If the board in Bantry can be taken over by the stroke of a pen, I must speak on this issue. The Minister of State spoke about consultation after the Bill is passed and said that he might give a commitment that something will happen. What if the consultation is not to the liking of one party or the other? It is incumbent on the Minister to make a decision, whether we like it.

If due diligence was that important, why is section 18 of the Bill not excluded? It could be brought in again. The positions of the commissioners in Bantry are up for review in October 2009. The next review will be five years later. Why do we not let things stand until 2014 and let us work through what has started in Bantry? I know the public is sceptical about the whole thing.

I would like to read into the record a couple of paragraphs of the Costello report. Judge Costello was an eminent judge who compiled a report of the Whiddy Island disaster in 1979. In his report, he referred to what went on at the harbour board. To ignore the Costello report would be to ignore one of the finest reports arising from a tribunal set up by the Oireachtas. There were two tribunals of inquiry that justified their status. One of them was the report on the Whiddy disaster, while the other was the report on the Stardust tragedy, in which there was major loss of life. The introduction to the Costello report states:

The Resolutions passed by the two Houses of the Oireachtas directed this tribunal to make "such recommendations (if any) as the Tribunal, having regard to its findings, thinks proper".

The Tribunal is conscious that a number of the recommendations which follow are not within the competence of the Irish Government or Parliament to implement. Their implementation would depend on action taken by authorities in other states. There are, however, a number of international organisations which are concerned specifically with tanker safety and safety at oil terminals, such as IMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping, the Oil Companies International Marine Forum and the International Association of Classification Societies. It is recommended that, if these recommendations are found to be acceptable by the Government, it should invite the appropriate international organisation to consider them with a view to assisting in their implementation. [That is because 50 lives were lost.]

Assistance might also be sought from the appropriate institutions of the European Economic Community. Some of the recommendations which follow, if found to be acceptable, can be implemented by means of regulations under the Dangerous Substances Act 1972.

It was submitted by counsel instructed on behalf of the Attorney General [on behalf of this State at that time] that the adequacy or otherwise of the Dangerous Substances (Oil Jetties) Regulations 1979, did not form part of the considerations of the inquiry being undertaken by the tribunal because the resolutions passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas referred to the establishment of a tribunal which would inquire, inter alia, into "measures, and their adequacy, taken on or before the 8th January, 1979". As the 1979 regulations came into force after that date it was submitted that their "adequacy" could not be considered by the tribunal.

The tribunal considers that as it can make any recommendations which it thinks fit having regard to its findings, it has power to make recommendations on means of strengthening the statutory control and supervision of oil terminals, even if such recommendations will involve the amendment and extension of the 1979 regulations. The tribunal did not understand counsel for the Attorney General to submit otherwise.

That is just the preamble, but there is a lot more. The Costello report compelled the then Government to act on Bantry Harbour because before that it was a free for all. They set up the original harbour which is now subject to being disbanded. I referred earlier to access to Whiddy Island in the event of a fire. It is currently under the control of the harbour board in Bantry.

Sub-paragraph 37 of chapter 23 of the Costello report states: "For the purposes of fighting fire, Whiddy Island when, or if, re-opened [it has reopened, but was closed for many years after the disaster] as an oil terminal [which it is] should be completely self-sufficient, with a back-up from the mainland only for medical treatment of injuries." The phrase "with a back-up from the mainland" is not adequate because of the onshore facilities. Sub-paragraph 43 states:

Regular inspections of oil terminals, at least on an annual basis, should be carried out by the responsible State authority. [I am not sure if that is the Department]. Inspectors and surveyors should be properly experienced and trained. As appears in the next paragraph they should be supplemented by outside expert consultants.

This is critical, as the most important facility in Bantry Bay is the oil terminal. This is a report by an eminent judge of a tribunal established by the Oireachtas in 1979.

Sub-paragraph 44 states:

The present situation in law is that responsibility for supervising and inspecting different aspects of the safety of oil jetties is vested in different State authorities, namely, harbour authorities, fire brigade authorities, planning authorities and Government Departments. [It was all over the shop]. This division of responsibility can easily lead to confusion — a point that was alluded to in a closing submission made to the tribunal. The present situation is an undesirable one and could lead to inadequate standards of inspection. The tribunal considers that a single State authority should be responsible for licensing oil jetties throughout the country, and that this single authority should likewise be responsible for the regular inspection of all oil jetties. It is recommended that the single State authority be a Government Department.

I accept that much progress has been made since then, but it is still a foundation stone. The Costello report on the disaster of 8 January 1979 continues, in sub-paragraph 44, as follows:

This recommendation is made not merely to avoid the possible confusion that can arise under a system of divided responsibility. [I am worried that the responsibilities are still somewhat divided]. To ensure that proper standards of safety are maintained, experts in different specialties (such as explosive substances, electrical engineering, and tanker operations) must be employed to carry out regular inspections. Harbour authorities and other local authorities would not have such experts in their regular employment and would have to employ outside consultants if they had legal responsibility for regular surveys of jetties in their functional areas. This could result in different standards being employed in different parts of the country — an eventuality which could be avoided if a single Government Department was responsible for inspecting all aspects of all jetties throughout the country. A centralised system would have the further advantage in that it would, in time, build up a body of expertise, a development which would undoubtedly help in maintaining high standards of inspection. It should be recognised that highly specialist knowledge and experience is required to ensure the maintenance of proper standards of safety, and outside consultants should be employed by the responsible Government Department both in the preparation and up-dating of statutory regulations and in specialist aspects of the Department's supervisory functions.

The Minister of State might confirm that in his reply, although I acknowledge that a lot has happened since then. Sub-paragraph 45 of the Costello report states: "Legislation should be enacted to change the present anomalous situation under which planning authorities and fire brigade authorities have no jurisdiction over oil jetties if they are situated in the sea beyond the low water mark." There is a lot more in the Costello report, but I do not have time to go into it today. In essence, however, Judge Costello said one of the main reasons for the 1979 disaster was a lack of coherence and responsibility as regards what happened in Bantry.

Arising from that report, the Bantry Harbour Board was set up under the old 1946 Act, but what has moved on since then? The 30th anniversary of the tragedy will be marked on 8 January 2009. We may talk about due diligence and consultation but, as of today, the onshore facilities at Bantry Harbour have not moved on. People may criticise me on that, but as somebody who lives there, I am afraid that if there were another such disaster, while we may be more professional and advanced in technology, the necessary infrastructure to take a fire tender or ambulance there is still lacking. The Act states that such facilities should be on the island, but there is more to Whiddy Island than the terminal.

The Minister of State may say that has nothing to do with this section of the Bill, but he referred to the potential of Bantry. That has been talked about for 40 years, yet I am not satisfied that this Bill will advance that potential in any way. I respect the Minister of State's view that we will examine the area of consultation, but I may have to revert to this matter again. My simple argument is that the consultation should have occurred by now. There have been numerous reports in the past ten years, but more could have been achieved by proper consultation between Bantry Harbour Board, Cork County Council and the Cork Port Authority. Such a meeting could have thrashed out matters and subsequently set down due diligence prior to the introduction of this Bill. We could then see some realism in it, but as of now it is like saying a novena to St. Jude, the patron saint of hopeless cases. We might get there some day, but I will probably be in my grave.