Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

Senator Paschal Donohoe, for whom I have great respect and who has recently been promoted, tabled this amendment, which states:

In page 17, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

"'public consultation' means a publicly advertised invitation for submission from stakeholders and the general public;".

In other words, he is making the important point that consultation should take place. I argue it has not taken place and that even if we are promised it into the future, it is like closing the stable door when the horse has bolted. When the horse gets out and the stable is bolted, there is nothing in the stable.

I will continue with your kind indulgence, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I have only about an hour left and I promise we will move as quickly as possible. I wish to read into the record a further letter regarding consultation with Cork Port. On 4 August 2004, the board chairman, Mr. Vivian O'Callaghan, wrote to the then Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy John Browne, at Leeson Lane, Dublin 2. The letter reads:

Dear Minister,

I refer to my letter of December 3rd 2003, in which my Board requested you to meet us to discuss a number of items. We are quite amazed and surprised that eight months later, we still have not received either an acknowledgement or reply to our letter.

One can understand the disquiet and lack of faith, so to speak. The letter continues:

You will recall that subsequent to the letter referred to above, Deputy Denis O'Donovan TD and I met you in your office in Leinster House in early March 2004. At that meeting you indicated that you proposed to travel to Bantry to meet the Board sometime after St Patrick's weekend. This meeting has not yet taken place. You also indicated on that occasion that you proposed to dispatch Mr Michael Guilfoyle to Bantry to discuss the possibility of amalgamating our Board with the Board of Cork Port Company.

These were open, transparent discussions set out by the harbour board vice chairman. The letter continues:

You can imagine our surprise recently at a meeting held with the Cork Port Company, to discuss items of mutual interest, it emerged that Mr Guilfoyle has already held meetings with Port of Cork management concerning this amalgamation. This despite the fact that no meeting of any description to discuss this matter has been held with Bantry Harbour Commissioners.

I feel quite sure you can appreciate how disappointed and annoyed my Members feel at this kind of treatment from the Department. You are probably aware that the present Board of Bantry Harbour Commissioners will leave office in October 2004. I am determined to ensure that, as the last Chairman of this particular Board, that this Board not be treated in such a cavalier fashion.

I await your response with interest.

Yours sincerely,

Vivian O'Callaghan, Chairman.

In case anyone suggests I am in any way transgressing in my manner of dealing with this debate, all of this concerns consultation or the lack of it. I have to get a clear picture of what has happened in recent years and put it on the record. This is important as I may never again have the opportunity to do so.

In the same year, 2004, the chairman also wrote to Mr. Creaney, private secretary of the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, stating:

Dear Mr Creaney,

With reference to your letter of 9th August 2004 the members of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners would be available to meet the Minister of State, Mr John Browne on the occasion of his visit to Cork on the 6th September.

Again, they are seeking meetings, not shying away from them. The letter continues:

I feel the following items in relation to Bantry could be discussed to our mutual benefit at this meeting.

1) Bye-Laws.

2) Corporatisation.

3) New Pier Funding.

4) The Burke Report.

May I suggest our office at Wolfe Tone Square, Bantry as a suitable venue for the meeting.

Yours sincerely,

Vivian O'Callaghan.

There is a further important letter, written on 16 September 2004 on the headed paper of the then Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, to the then chairman, Mr. Vivian O'Callaghan, Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners, Wolfe Tone Square, Bantry, where it was received and stamped on 17 September 2004. It reads:

Dear Chairman,

As agreed at our meeting on 6 September last, I am writing to set out my understanding of the outcome of the meeting and of how to ensure that the dialogue between the Department and Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners can be progressed in the future on a positive basis.

Pier Development

As stated at the meeting, the interruption in the dialogue with the Commissioners and the referral of the matter to the Attorney General was a direct consequence of the unilateral decision by the Commissioners to place a contract while discussions with the Department on the viability of the project were ongoing. Up to the point of interruption of the dialogue, the Department had not been satisfied that the project was viable and would not have resulted in serious financial harm to the Commissioners. For this reason, the Department officials were most surprised at the decision taken by the Commissioners at that time to enter into the contract in March 2002, given that there was not a shared understanding on the viability of the project, in respect of which the Department was being asked to provide support.

I am keen that the Commissioners and the Department re-engage in a constructive and fruitful manner, having regard to previous expression of support for the project. I can assure the Commissioners that the services of the Department and myself will be applied positively to this end.

From our discussions, I understand that the Commissioners believe that the business environment for the project has shifted from that originally envisaged. As you are aware, the projected costs have escalated since the consideration of Exchequer support of €1.9 million by the former Minister. Furthermore, no progress appears to have been made on the conditions contained in the former Minister's letter of 15 May 2002 ... which letter expressly instructed the Commissioners not to enter into any contractual commitments pending a report on progress in relation to the two stipulated conditions [In the event, the contract had already been placed]. Accordingly, I would propose that the project be reviewed in terms of its viability, the financial implications for the Commissioners of increased borrowings for the project due to its escalated cost and the risks to the project posed by the dominant position of the terminal operator. To this end, I invite the Commissioners to submit for consideration a ... detailed updated proposal for the project, including a comprehensive business plan with financial projections. The Department is available to assist the Commissioners in elaborating its requirements in terms of the proposal.

I believe that plan was submitted. The letter continued:

The future management of Bantry Harbour

You will be aware that the Oireachtas decided in 1996, through the passage of the Harbours Act 1996, that the latter represented the best legislative model within which a commercial port should operate.

It is thus a matter of longstanding policy that the Harbours Act 1946 is no longer regarded as a suitable instrument for the management of State harbours. Accordingly, it is proposed, over time, to effect the dissolution of all the harbour authorities currently operating under the Act and, where appropriate, to transfer responsibility for the control and management of each harbour to a local authority or to a port company.

I regard Bantry harbour as a significant port in terms of business and location in the Southwest. It is therefore, firm policy to maintain the harbour and, where possible and appropriate, to develop it. Consideration has been given to the best means of ensuring that Bantry harbour is positioned and equipped to fulfil its commercial port functions in a modern, professional way. It is essential, in that context, that Bantry has available to it the best marketing, project management and technical and general management skills as befits its importance and potential.

I cannot disagree with any of that. It further states:

It is my view that the harbour should be operated within the provisions of the Harbours Act 1996. This Act, together with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, will provide the necessary framework to ensure the effective corporate governance of the State body concerned.

It is the Department's view that the business associated with the harbour falls below the minimum level of activity necessary to justify the establishment of a new company when compared to the alternative available to the State and that the Port of Cork Company is ideally positioned to ensure that Bantry has access to the best regional port management expertise, marketing skills and strategic development planning.

I would urge the Commissioners to assess fully the pros and cons of the options mentioned above and to explore fully with the Port of Cork the conditions which might surround any amalgamation of Cork and Bantry, which would protect the interests of Bantry. I fully appreciate that the Commissioners will enter any discussions with the Port of Cork Company on a 'without prejudice' basis and I can assure the Commissioners that no final decision will be taken other than in full consultation with them.

That statement that no final decision will be taken without full consultation with them is critical. That has not taken place and that is the reason my colleague's proposed amendment is critical to this issue. This is material I have researched since the last occasion I spoke here.