Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

There was no consultation. There is some match-making going on here without any courtship, consultation or negotiation. Consultation is the important issue.

A commitment was given on the amalgamation of Cork and Bantry. There was to be prior consultation. An operation for due diligence was set in place, which was never completed. I do not know why there is a rush. The simple solution, which would save me a great deal of time and trouble, would be to abandon section 18 in the short term and revisit it in two, three or five years time when consultation has taken place.

I will continue to read from the KPMG report, which states that where investment requirements have been proposed they are not commensurate with their financial performance or reserves, which in some cases are minimal. Some ports have a major expense with the maintenance of dredging requirements.

Regarding consultation, it is important to read the executive summary of this report. I will not read the whole report now; I will leave the rest for after lunch. This report was commissioned by the then Department in charge of this area. The introduction says that a consortium led by KPMG consultants and comprising of Posford DuVivier, Brady Shipman Martin, Fitzpatrick Associates and MDS Transmodal was commissioned by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources to undertake a review of State regional ports and harbours.

It is important to stick with the words "consult" and "consultation". The introduction also says that regard must be given to developing a general strategic framework for ports and harbours, having regard to the differing conditions, and that generic and port harbour related models and options will best deliver the objectives of the strategic framework. The 16 ports in question are Annagassan Pier, Wicklow, Wexford, Kinsale, Bantry Bay, Kilrush, River Moy, Ballyshannon, Dundalk, Arklow, Youghal, Baltimore and Skibbereen, Fenit, Westport, Sligo and Buncrana.

It is interesting to note that this Bill refers only to Bantry and Fenit. Are the other 14 on hold or have we been chosen to be punished for our sins? Three of the ports, Arklow, Dundalk and Wicklow, were specified in the Harbours Act, 1996 as companies that conformed to the conditions laid down in that Act but had not yet achieved the status of a commercial State company. Some may have achieved it now.

The report goes on to say all of the ports are in the hands of harbour commissioners made up of representatives of local interests and councillors. We should remember that councillors are being denied representation under this Bill, which is a retrograde step and was the subject of another amendment by a Senator from the other side of the House.

I will continue to refer to the KPMG report. Two of the ports in question, Kilrush and Youghal, are effectively managed by the relevant urban district council. Donegal County Council indicated to the then Department of the Marine and Natural resources its willingness to take responsibility for the harbours of Ballyshannon and Buncrana.

The context of this report is that over the years there has been much discussion on the ownership and status of ports. The review group on commercial harbours and piloted policies and legislation analysed in depth the Harbours Acts 1946 to 1976, vis-À-vis their relevance to modern port operations. It put forward a recommendation in June 1992 that 12 ports, on the basis of their financial viability and level of commercial traffic, should become commercial State ports.

It mentions that all other harbours of lesser commercial significance should be transferred to the relevant local authority or fisheries traffic centre in what was then the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources. This is a critical area of the report regarding consultation. The report refers to what happened in 1992.

If this legislation, affecting Bantry, Fenit and perhaps other ports, was introduced ten or 12 years ago, I would probably have supported it wholeheartedly. The status of Bantry has changed immensely. There was no fish farming in Bantry prior to 1984 or 1985, and many things have changed in that regard. I have no doubt that sensible provisions have been made.

Consultation has taken place in areas such as Castletownbere, Killybegs and Rossaveal. They were taken over by the then Department of the Marine and Natural Resources as fishery ports, which was a positive move. Significant development has taken place.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Tony Killeen was in Castletownbere last week where, to date, in excess of €40 million has been spent on developing its harbour as a fishing port. In other ports, such as Bantry, financial commitments made over three decades were not acted upon due to a lack of consultation. I spoke on the amendment tabled by Senator Donohoe on consultation, or, rather, the lack of it.

I will refer to a few more paragraphs of the executive summary of this report. The report says there has been a general concern about the need to secure, if not to enhance, the livelihood of the coastal communities who depend on the sea. This is particularly true for those ports that have annual commercial traffic of less than 250,000 tonnes.

Areas such as Castletownbere, Schull, Bantry and other coastal areas opposed the Lisbon treaty by a margin of four to one due to a lack of interest in coastal communities and a lack of consultation, which goes back to the issue here. The issue may be broader than this, but it is how people in isolated rural communities feel. The report also states that these ports and harbours range from those with busy commercial traffic to others catering for a mix of uses, including sea fishing and marine leisure, and some that experienced a severe decline in commercial and sea borne trade. One could not have a more appropriate quotation from this in-depth report as it applies to a port like Bantry, which has a mix. Departments can sometimes look at commercial viability, linking in the likes of Whiddy and Whitegate to see what has occurred there. However, one must examine the broader socio-economic situation where no consultation has taken place with shellfish farmers, island-goers to places such as Garinish Island, or marine-related tourism which has a future.

The report continues:

The 1996 Harbours Act provides for three options for the small harbours: 1. to retain the status quo [this means that they can continue to be subject to the Harbours Act 1946]; 2. to set up semi-State companies to manage some or all of them; or 3. to transfer them to local authorities.

In case it might be thought that this report was ignored by harbour boards, I know from my few years on the Bantry Harbour Board that we discussed it at length. We actually voted on those three options. The transfer to a local authority was supported by three of the 11 members. It was unanimously agreed that the notion of being taken up by another port was not an issue. There was strong support for the notion of corporatisation. Perhaps the Minister of State can shed some light on whether the notion of harbours such as Bantry being corporatised as independent, self-sufficient ports, has been abandoned. The idea was being closely examined by the Minister of State's predecessor. In or around April 2002, that process was almost put in place following consultation at the highest level. Perhaps the Minister of State can inform us why that did not happen.