Michael McCarthy (Labour)

Towards the end of 2008 we had occasion to discuss the issue of consultation. My colleagues — in particular, Senator O'Donovan — have made good points on consultation. With all due respect to the Minister of State present, a commitment was given by the senior Minister to meet with the board and representatives from the Bantry area. There was a clear belief among those people that the consultation would involve a meeting at which they could put forward their views, particularly concerning the legislation and the broader consultative process that should take place to ensure that there is a general body of support for the Bill itself. It is my understanding that neither Bantry Harbour Board members nor Bantry town councillors were consulted on this matter. I fundamentally disagree with the broader aim of this Bill, which is to remove councillors from running ports.

The previous Seanad debated at length the abolition of the dual mandate, as well as various pieces of important local government legislation and what they meant for the functioning of local democratic bodies. Most Senators would share that view, particularly those who have served more than two or three terms and know the system well, including how local authorities respond to our work here. We need to be aware of where our electoral base is. By and large the Seanad's vocational panels spring from democracy at local level. Most of us began our political careers in local government.

Over the years I have seen the role of councillors being consistently reduced and power being taken from them. One of the few reserve functions councillors had was to set charges for refuse collections, but that is now an executive function. The manager comes along and the price is fixed, but that took an element of democracy out of the system. Councillors are elected from all sections of society. Those elected to a town, borough or county council are there because people decided they were the best persons to represent them on their locally elected body. I hold that system of local democratic government dear to my heart and we should never forget about it. This legislation, however, adds to the assault not just on local government but on members of local authorities throughout the country. Have the councillors' organisations written to the Department regarding this legislation? I expect the answer to the question to be "Yes" because I have proof of this. What was the response? Local authorities have passed resolutions raising serious concerns about the legislation and calling on the Minister to desist from his clear intention of removing councillors from harbour boards.

With regard to Bantry, we will not be thanked, as legislators, if we do what the Bill proposes, that is wind up the harbour board. Senator O'Donovan and I cannot stand for that. As recently as last Friday, through the Oireachtas education unit, the Senator and I visited a second level school in Bantry and we discussed this issue in a CPSE class. There is a strong feeling about this important issue in the locality. I have a fundamental difficulty with the expressed intention in the Bill to do away with that and I do not buy the line that the ports will have a Government appointed body. That does not wash.

I recall receiving assurances from the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, that following the abolition of the dual mandate Oireachtas Members would have the right to attend meetings of public bodies and have access to local managers. However, the practical result of not being a member of a council is that one does not have first-hand information. I have found it difficult to obtain replies from some officials. However, I have a good rapport with the officials in my area. We have a good management structure in west Cork, for which I am thankful. However, the commitment given by the former Minister regarding access to officials has not stood up.

We are granted one paltry meeting a year with management. Two years ago, managers decided we would begin with a lunch before discussing the issues. I was offended by that because it was a waste of money and time to meet officials at 1 p.m. and not commence the meeting until 2.30 p.m. when bellies were full and a few glasses had gone down the hatch. That does not cut ice. Thankfully, that has changed and we have had productive discussions with management and directors of services. In 2008, following a proposal I made in December 2007 at a meeting attended by the Acting Chairman, we met the representatives of the structural divisions, which worked quite well. However, I raised with the former Minister, Deputy Cullen, the issue of access for Oireachtas Members and his commitment was akin to saying we should all pray that we will have fine weather tomorrow.

I accept the Minister of State has a difficult job because the legislation has been passed to him to steer through the House and my comments are not directed at him. I wish the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government were present so that I could put these points to him. He gave a commitment to meet people from Bantry. Did the Department receive correspondence from Bantry Town Council, Bantry Harbour Commissioners, and the councillors' organisations? Did it receive information and requests from local authorities as a result of resolutions? I suspect the answer to these questions is "Yes". If so, what reply issued? What commitment was given by the Minister? What happened to the commitment he gave to the people in the Bantry area last year? Why has he not honoured it?