Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I concur with Senator McCarthy's comments regarding the inclusion of councillors on these bodies. The experience in port companies, and other bodies such as those involved in partnerships and the Leader programme, is that those who put themselves before the public tend to have a commitment that instills a deep interest in them to participate fully in those bodies. I concede that others appointed on behalf of communities and so on are often good but there is not always uniformity of interest from the other groups or the attendance levels of councillors. Every time legislation is introduced in the House, we are fighting this cause. There are elements within the Civil Service who want to exclude politicians from everything but they do not have the same enthusiasm for excluding themselves from appointment to many of these positions.

As politicians, we depend on Ministers to protect our interest. People who put themselves before the public are only in position as long as they have the support of the public. The public has the right to make changes every four or five years and we should, therefore, preserve and support our democratic system.

I take on board the Minister of State's comment that this issue is peripheral to the amendments, which brings me to the thrust of the section. Having worked in ports in the southern part of the country for many years, I have observed some of the trends. Having worked with a business operation in Foynes for many years I recall the opposition there was particularly in the Foynes area and among the trustees of the harbour to the amalgamation that took place within the Shannon Estuary. Much of that was driven by people who had a real sense of commitment and pride in the achievements of Foynes Port over the years. They significantly surpassed those of Limerick because Foynes had some natural advantages. It had deeper water than Limerick. Those involved invested considerably in the port and showed great initiative in the developments that took place there. There was no enthusiasm for the amalgamation.

As there was no port authority, no consideration was given to dealing with Moneypoint. I regard Moneypoint as being more than a generating station. Moneypoint has tremendous potential as a deep water port. On a number of occasions private investors considered it as a transhipment location. I had discussions with some of the people at the time who were interested in developing it and thought there was good potential for a transhipment port off the west coast to compete with some of the major transhipment ports, particularly Rotterdam. Obviously the feasibility of that was always challenging.

I knew people involved in Limerick Port at the time who wanted the amalgamation because there was a certain amount of rivalry between them and those in Foynes. Along with many others, I felt the whole thing was driven by that particular desire, aided and abetted by certain selective officials in the Department who regarded this as a master plan.

Senator O'Donovan referred to the KPMG report. I recall some of those reports and their preparation. I happen to be one of the people interviewed by KPMG when it was looking at other ports in the south east. It was clear that it was not involved to give an impartial independent evaluation of what was right and what the benefits were. That would obviously have been the prescription and perhaps the complexion put on it. However, like many of those things, it was there to fulfil a policy intention with regard to what the Department wanted done. In our area we mounted a strong rearguard action, as happened in Foynes.

It is proposed to amalgamate small ports. However, very little synergy is to be obtained. There may be some initial small cost savings in administration, etc. However, as we saw in the case of the Shannon Estuary, if we were now to calculate the administrative costs of operating it and the legal costs incurred as a consequence of the difficulties during and subsequent to the amalgamation, there might be losses rather than savings.

As someone with some experience in the area, I have always felt that ports have a niche advantage in certain areas. In my area, Waterford has developed as a good container port. Rosslare developed for roll-on roll-off traffic. Those are niche markets. The concentration within those ports should be on developing trade and giving competitive services to the public. Ultimately ports are like roads. They exist to provide infrastructure for people to do business. It is essential that it is done in a competitive way. In this scenario involving policy of amalgamation, I am fairly certain that such aspects have not been considered.

I appreciate the Minister of State's position regarding this report. The ports policy statement, reference to which is made in the explanatory memorandum, dates back a number of years and would predate the Minister of State taking office in that Department or perhaps in any Department. It probably dates back to the late 1980s or early 1990s. It fails to recognise a number of issues that can arise with amalgamations. Because we have so few ports, it is imperative that we have competition. It is equally imperative that they function properly and efficiently.

I will give a small example. I have worked most of my adult life in the port of New Ross. New Ross prospered because of good work practices and a co-operative workforce, which took pride in the growth of the business. We were also assisted by the very bad industrial relations in the neighbouring port of Waterford, whose deep water section was closed for the best part of two decades. If the two ports had been amalgamated at that time, business traffic through ports in the south east would have come to a standstill, which makes no sense.

Dublin Port should not be where it is and should have relocated at least a decade ago. Along with One51, the Dublin Port Company owns the port of Greenore, a competing deep water port. We need to maintain competition. I am glad we did not go down the route that was suggested whereby all the north-eastern ports would merge into one port company. For example, Drogheda has shown initiative and been competitive, and is now considering developing a deep water port in Bremore in north County Dublin, which is the right way to go. The Bill proposes amalgamating certain ports, including Tralee and Fenit. I imagine that, as the traffic in Tralee and Fenit would be very small, that amalgamation would not be material.

However, Bantry Bay is a national asset. It is a significant deep water port. Given my experience of what happened in Foynes, the amalgamation there has done nothing to enhance trade or efficiencies at the port. I do not believe that will happen. I can understand why people in Cork would want to have it as part of its port company. Most companies want to develop and expand. However, it is an easy option. The expansion that should take place should be based on a port's initiative and development, and also on competition. Ringaskiddy is a deep water port within the Cork Port Company. I have no problem with changing the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. Why not have a separate Bantry Bay port company, if that is regarded as a better approach? It already has business and should be encouraged, as Foynes was encouraged to develop. If the amalgamation of the Shannon Estuary ports had taken place a few decades earlier than it did, Foynes would never have developed to the extent that it did. It is very important that port policy, because of the small number of options that importers and exporters have, is developed in a way that ensures competition and that infrastructure is put in place. It is far better to do so on the basis of each location rather than putting them all in the one pot. When the KPMG report was published, it was discussed with the Department and KPMG. It was suggested that approaching port companies and creating critical mass would lead to floating the companies on the stock market. It is a long time since that suggestion was mooted and I assume it is no longer part of the agenda, but it never had great potential because all of the companies in Ireland could not create the critical mass that would be attractive to investors. Even if that were done and private money were attracted for development, this would reduce competition significantly. Ultimately this is the lifeblood of infrastructure and services. It is essential to the well-being of those companies that depend on imports and exports. This should be seriously reappraised and examined.

My experience in the business, in excess of three decades, suggests that this is the wrong direction to go. It may seem like a good idea in theory but in practice it is not. It is being driven by people who perhaps do not have practical experience and who are considering this from a theoretical point of view. I urge that this be re-examined. There are very few deep water ports in the country and very few areas with the potential to develop as such. Where that is the case, like trying to exploit any natural resources we have, it should be given an opportunity and supported. Amendments have been tabled in this regard.

I thank the Minister of State for introducing this Bill in the Seanad because we have the opportunity to debate it and shape it here so that as it progresses through these Houses, it will be enhanced. However, there is flawed thinking behind the proposition in respect of Cork and Bantry. The potential of Bantry is not replicated in Tralee or Fenit. In the national interest and in the interests of developing our port infrastructure, which everyone recognises needs development, it is better to keep them separate, to retain the element of competition and to keep the focus on each individual realising full potential rather than pulling them together and where interests within the port company may seek to develop one area over another. This may be contrary to what we and the Minister of State want to achieve in this legislation.