Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

The thrust of the amendment tabled by Senator Donohoe on the issue of consultation, consultants and related matters is connected to the issue of having consultation before a proposal is made to have a harbour board subsumed into or taken over by another port authority. I have spoken on this issue previously and will speak on it again.

I refer to the report, A Review of the State Regional Ports and Harbours, carried out in June 1999 by the eminent professional organisation, KPMG, at the request of the then Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. While it is one of several reports on this topic, it is worth referring to it in the context of the amendment. The executive summary states that in carrying out the review KPMG deliberately had set out to ensure an all-encompassing approach was taken which recognised the need to collect data and consult widely and broadly. It then sets out the various steps taken as part of the review. For example, a detailed and structured questionnaire was prepared to collect base information on the performance of each port and, where relevant, engineering reports and other supporting material were sought and provided.

The Department of Marine and Natural Resources no longer has control of some of the ports in question, including Fenit Harbour and Bantry Harbour, although it continues to have control of sea fishing ports such as Castletownbere and Killybegs. The KPMG report states the Department, on behalf of the company, invited representatives of all the ports in question to consultative meetings in November 1998 at its offices in Dublin where KPMG indicated the approach it would adopt, secured the views of the attendees on the prepared questionnaire and answered questions the attendees had on the overall approach. The Department also placed a public notice in the national and local press referring to the review and calling for submissions, comments and observations to be forwarded to KPMG. Many valuable submissions were received arising from the notice. The public notice also served to advise the local interests in question about the review and enabled them to prepare for KPMG's visit.

While the 1999 report is outdated in many areas, if the approach adopted by KPMG were taken in the context of the proposals before us, I would not be speaking to this amendment because we would have achieved an agreement or consensus. However, such an approach was not taken.

The executive summary of the KPMG report states it sought independently the views of interested parties, many of whom provided submissions or were interviewed. These included Bord Fáilte, an important organisation in the area I represent, the regional tourism authorities, the Chartered Institute of Transport in Ireland, the Irish Institute of Master Mariners and the Irish Ports Association. These steps were taken by KPMG in 1999. The type of consultation process proposed in the amendment tabled by Senator Donohoe should take place.

We should note the steps taken as part of the review carried out by KPMG. The executive summary states it visited each port in turn and viewed the facilities in place and had discussions with the harbour commissioners, port management and stakeholders, including fish farmers and, in places such as Whiddy Island, local islanders. In this context, KPMG met representatives of local chambers of commerce, tourism interests, fishermen, local authority staff, industrialists, stevedores and others.

I have not spoken on the report in our previous debates on the Bill. The process undertaken in 1999 as part of a review examining the position in the previous decade was not repeated on this occasion. Last night and this morning I spoke to representatives of the Irish Shellfish Association which has a major interest in Bantry Bay and Bantry Harbour and former members of the board. Last week I sought the views of a man living in South Africa. He has told me he cannot believe a similar consultation process as that carried out in 1999 has not taken place. Under the legislation, such a process may take place once the Bill has been enacted.

The KPMG report states that, on the basis of the information supplied, it prepared its port profiles which it distributed to all of the ports for their comments. It then carried out an analysis, from which it developed recommendations. This approach shows the lengths to which the Department went to consult the interested groups. Following a thorough investigation, the KPMG review concluded that the 1946 Harbours Act was unsuitable and outdated for modern ports, including the regional harbours and ports under review, and acted as a constraint to the development of their socio-economic potential. I do not disagree with that conclusion. This potential is of critical commercial importance to Bantry Bay and the surrounding area. We have the Whiddy Terminal, the Leahill Quarry and possibly visits by cruise liners to Garnish Island. There is a broader issue concerning Bantry Bay and the harbour.

The reports states that the main emphasis of the EU Green Paper is that ports' revenue should cover their full costs. I will read some audited accounts into the record from Bantry Port, which has operated in the black for the past 11 or 12 years, continuously and successfully.

The report also states that ports generally want to retain the status quo believing current arrangements reflect local interests and knowledge and are in the best interests of the port in question. It further states that the harbour and ports in question play an important regional role and their economic value can be very often direct in terms of commercial activity and spend. It has been indicated that for every fisherman at sea there are three workers on land supporting or benefitting from his activities.

It goes on to say that most of the ports are not profitable, have few financial reserves and, consequently, have had inadequate historical investment. That is very important. I have no problem with ports that are handicapped due to a lack of development, finance or revenue. There are a number of ports in the constituency which are in limbo, such as Baltimore.

It is comparable to the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, some of whom had their wicks trimmed and survived the dark night, whereas others were foolish and fell asleep. Those involved in Bantry Port were wise, prudent and collected revenue, and are doing much good work within the port.

Regarding consultation, I will deviate slightly from the port. I will not speak ad nauseam but it is critical——