Seanad debates

Thursday, 20 November 2008

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

 

11:00 am

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

In case we have lost track of what has happened since we last debated this two weeks ago, the amendment proposed by Senator Donohoe states that "public consultation" means a publicly advertised invitation for submissions from stakeholders and the public. I am support this issue and I spoke about it with some brevity on the previous occasion.

In case I had the wrong meaning of the word "consultation", I did a Google search on the word and looked up some dictionaries as well. It means meetings, discussions and decisions, among other things. In old English law, it refers to a writ returning a case to an ecclesiastical court from a temporal one. In Australia, it can mean a lottery. In the old Latin dictionary, consultatus or consultare mean that there must be discussion between people. In support of the amendment, my understanding is that such a consultation process has not taken place.

I acknowledge the olive branch offered by the Minister of State, when he stated that he might be prepared to accept consultation in the Bill. I mean no disrespect to him, but the difficulty is that this reminds me of someone being taken to the gallows. The person is prepared emotionally and physically for this trauma and the hood is put over him. He is then told that we may not decide to put the rope around his neck and let him swing for an indefinite period. The enactment of this Bill effectively states the same thing. When section 18 is enacted — I have not dealt with that yet — Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners will be no more.

This legislation may be described by some as "enabling", but I see it as totally disabling the current situation in Bantry. I must labour this point and will do so next week or whenever the Bill comes before us again, although I will probably be running out of ammunition. It is a central plank of my argument that the consultation referred to by Senator Donohoe and supported by me and other speakers, has not been adhered to up to now. It is little solace to the people of the greater Bantry area, and those using the port, to know that when the legislation is in place we will be consulted, having by then been crippled by the Act. That applies across the board whether at Whiddy Island, or the mussel or salmon farms, or the stone-exporting industry at Leighhill in Adrigole, or to other port users. It goes against the grain. Since contributing to the debate on the last occasion, I have spoken to the west Cork manager and other interested parties who are somewhat despondent and disillusioned that this step is being taken despite the fact that a number of discussions had taken place.

I wish to put on the record what has been happening for some time regarding Bantry Bay. Although I was not present at it, I was involved in setting up a meeting on Wednesday, 7 July 2004, at the Port of Cork offices. I have a memorandum from the Harbour Commissioners about this meeting which was to discuss a proposal from the then Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources re Bantry Port's future. Present at the meeting were Mr. Vivian O'Callaghan, Mr. John O'Riordan and Mr. Alec O'Donovan from Bantry, while the Port of Cork representatives were Mr. Dermot O'Mahony, Mr. Brendan Keating and Captain Pat Farnan.

On that occasion, which was only four years ago, but it is significant, it was said by some people from the Port of Cork, regarding the issue of consultation, that Cork would agree to join with Bantry — not for Bantry to be subsumed — only with agreement with Bantry, provided the Minister approached them and there was a consensus. They had detailed discussions with some Department officials and the whole tenet of those discussions on that date, 7 July 2004, was of joining up and becoming a partnership, which is not envisaged in this Bill. That is why Senator Donohoe's amendment is so pertinent.

I am loath to mention people outside the House but the then chairman of the board of the Port of Cork, Mr. O'Mahony, said that if agreement was reached the condition would be that the Department would bank-roll all the costs involved. I think the agenda was that outstanding issues for Bantry would be dealt with prior to any partnership. At the same meeting, according to a synopsis of the minutes taken, Mr. O'Riordan from Bantry Port said that Bantry was viable as a port and had no outstanding financial commitments. Mr. Vivian O'Callaghan went on to say that one of the prerequisites was that a pier must be built. We have no plans at the moment in that regard. We all know that if Cork Port takes us over that will not happen in this century, whatever about the 22nd century.

Mr. Brendan Keating from Cork Port said quite clearly that whatever happened consent would have to be forthcoming and available from the Bantry board. In the ongoing discussion, Mr. O'Mahony went on to say what Cork would bring to Bantry in this whole area. This was all about consultation which, unfortunately, seems to have petered out. It was suggested that the Conoco facilities at Whitegate and Bantry could perhaps generate more cargo.

As I said previously, this all concerns consultation or the lack of it. I cannot emphasise that enough. At that meeting, Mr. Vivian O'Callaghan pointed out, as was agreed by many, that health and safety was the main aspect behind the pier because our facilities are inadequate in that respect. On the last occasion, I read into the record some of the comments made by the eminent former High Court judge, Mr. Justice Costello, regarding the Whiddy Island disaster.

It was said at the time that the Whitegate and Whiddy facilities would envisage progress but it was pointed out that, apart from the cargo trade, Bantry also had recreational potential. A very important point was made at that meeting when the weasel question was referred to by Mr. Dermot O'Mahony. He asked clearly and succinctly if there was a dredging problem for Bantry pier and the inner harbour. The facts are, and I am deviating slightly——

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.