Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 17, to delete lines 23 and 24.

The taking of amendments Nos. 13 to 17, inclusive, will make life easier for someone. It is probably unusual in Parliament that a Government Senator would table amendments to legislation proposed by his or her own Government. I have been 15 years in the Oireachtas and this is my first endeavour. I do not do this lightly. These amendments propose to delete the references to Bantry Harbour and Port from section 18.

Section 18 reads:

(1) The Principal Act is amended by inserting the following section after section 87:

"87A.—(1) In this section—

'relevant harbour commissioners' means—

(a) in relation to the Port of Cork Company, Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners,and. . .

. . . 'relevant port company' means—

(a) in relation to Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners, the Port of Cork Company,and. . .

. . . (2) (a) The Minister may by order appoint a day as the transfer day for the purposes of this section in respect of Bantry Bay Harbour and, with effect from that day, the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners are dissolved . . .

(3) With effect from the transfer day concerned, there is transferred—

(a) to the Port of Cork Company from Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners, or . . .

. . . all property (real and personal) and rights held or enjoyed immediately before that day by the relevant harbour commissioners and all liabilities incurred before that day by them that had not been discharged before that day and, accordingly, with out any further conveyance, transfer or assignment—

(i) the property so held or enjoyed, both real and personal, [it reads like a will or a bequeath] vests on the transfer day in the Port of Cork Company . . . for all the estate, term or interest for which, immediately before that day, it was vested in the relevant harbour commissioners, but subject to all trusts and equities affecting the property and capable of being performed,

(ii) the rights so held or enjoyed, are as on and from the transfer day, held and enjoyed by the Port of Cork Company . . . as the case may be, and

(iii) the liabilities so incurred are, as on and from the transfer day, the liabilities of the Port of Cork Company . . . as the case may be.

Section 18(4) and the subsequent subsections are more serious, considering it is about the demise of a harbour commissionership. It states:

(4) All moneys, stocks, shares and securities transferred to the relevant port company by this section that, immediately before the transfer day, are in the name of the relevant harbour commissioners, shall, at the request of the relevant port company, be transferred into that company's name.

(5) Every right and liability transferred to the relevant port company by this section may, on and after the transfer day, be sued on, recovered or enforced by or against the relevant port company in its own name and it shall not be necessary for it to give notice of the transfer to the person whose right or liability is transferred by this section.

(6) Every—

(a) bond, guarantee or other security of a continuing nature, and

(b) contract or agreement, made or given by or on behalf of the relevant commissioners to any person or given by any person to and accepted by or on behalf of the relevant harbour commissioners—

(i) continues in force on and after the transfer day concerned,

(ii) shall be read and have effect as if the name of the relevant company were substituted in the contract or agreement for that of the relevant harbour commissioners concerned or, as the case may be, any trustee or agent acting on their behalf, and

(iii) is enforceable against the relevant company.

This is like reading a will. Once the Bill is enacted, which is the Minister's intention as is his right and which he feels is his duty, it is the end of the road for Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners and the port.

The commissioners are required under law to submit annual accounts and financial statements, properly audited, to the Department every year. Mr. Aiden McCarthy, a local, is the chairman of the board of commissioners. The board comprises Mr. Michael Hennebry, Mr. Eugene Cronin, Mr. Mario Mehane, Ms. Kathleen Tessyman, Mr. Pat Kelly, Ms Lette Baker, Mr. John O'Shea, Mr. Tim Minihan, Mr. Patrick Murphy and Mr. David Shiels. One is a former naval officer, another an electrician and two, county councillors. Whatever about their politics or their backgrounds, they have varying expertise which will be ended when this Bill is enacted.

The Minister claims this is just enabling legislation. If it is enabling legislation, I would have no problem with the thrust of the Bill. I do have a problem with including Bantry Harbour in it. If it were just enabling legislation, why can the status quo in Bantry not continue?

I wish our banks had the same transparent balance sheet and corporate governance as that of the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. From its 2008 accounts, it has revenue reserves of €1.534 million with a total in excess of €2 million. This has increased since 2007 from €1.44 million to €2.196 million. Its surplus for 2008 came to just under €2 million after paying the harbour master rent for offices, which comes to €20,000 per annum, insurance, maintenance, light and power charges, legal, accounting and auditing fees, and promotions.

I must correct the record. On Committee Stage before Christmas I said the commissioners decided not to take any small expenses for attending meetings. Apparently they reverted on that and according to the accounts, commissioner meetings expenses came to €12,000. Wages and PRSI in 2008 came to €84,000. The accounts also include charges incurred for offices, banking, website maintenance and consultants. Travel expenses for commissioners in 2008 came to €50 when many times they had to travel to Cork and Dublin to meet their counterparts at Cork and Dublin ports.

This healthy balance sheet has been replicated for the past 11 years. It was a successful port with, I accept, the assistance of the Department. I will accept that in their zeal, the commissioners made mistakes but they learned from them. Apart from disbanding the commissionership, all the port's assets will be transferred to the Cork Port.

While appearing on "Questions and Answers", I challenged somebody who was criticising Dingle harbour's board of commissioners and claiming they were a shower of cronies. The record shows that the board's 11 members include two elected county councillors, John O'Shea of Fine Gael and Patrick Murphy of Fianna Fáil, and two town councillors, Pat Kelly and Eugene Cronin. A further two members, including Michael Hennebry, were selected by the port and harbour users' association. Under the legislation, the Minister of the day can make three appointments to the board, one of whom must be a trade union representative. In the normal course of events, SIPTU proposes a name for the latter position which is never challenged. The board includes a mixture of expertise, therefore.

What are the advantages of transferring Bantry Harbour to Cork? The Minister of State may argue that it is a question of corporate governance or that Cork's managers have greater experience. I have been told unofficially by several of the directors of the Port of Cork that they do not particularly want to be made responsible for Bantry because it will cause them too many headaches. They certainly do not want us if they have to pay for the €12 million dredging project or the pier extension, which has been promised for the past 30 or 40 years.

We are in the black and have a healthy balance sheet. I could speak about a range of issues affecting the bay but the most pressing issue the harbour faces is the need for dredging. Everyone knows that the development of the town is threatened while the harbour remains undredged. When the new hotel was being constructed, foreign architects flew over the bay and compared it favourably to the UK and France in terms of its beautiful sheltered harbour.

It is a very old issue. When I was a Senator between 1989 and 1991 I asked the then Tánaiste, John Wilson, to visit Bantry and inspect its port. Dredging was a major issue at the time and, 20 years later, I wonder what I am doing here. I often wake up and ask whether it is time to stand aside. A grant of €75,000 was provided for a hydrographic survey, which unfortunately revealed the presence of mercury and another dangerous contaminant called TBT in samples taken from the pier. The normal relatively cheap dredging process whereby material from around the pier is scooped up and dumped in the middle of the bay cannot be carried out because mercury is such a lethal poison that it could damage shellfish or enter the food chain and kill people. However, even though there is no mercury in Castletownbere, the Department of Transport has spent €40 million on that port to remove TBT contamination. Engineers from the Department explained that they put the contaminated material into a holding bay and covered it with concrete. Mercury, which is a more unstable poison, was held in concrete bollards and taken to Germany, which is the only place in Europe that can stabilise the contaminants. That gives an indication of the difficulties we face.

The Port of Cork Company will regard the problems we face in the inner harbour in Bantry as inappropriate to its remit as a commercial port. It will have no interest in marine tourism or leisure boats. It will not agree to deviate from its strict commercial remit. The Bill will reduce the number of directors of port companies from 12 to eight. We will be very fortunate if one of these comes from Bantry but we will be outvoted if any issue arises that is important to Bantry.

I do not wish to be parochial but I have read in a magazine about the British navy that Bantry Bay is the second finest in the world in terms of its depth and length and the shelter it offers. If the dredging was carried out, it would open up self-financing opportunities. We would not have to ask the Department to develop a marina or other possibilities around the inner harbour. There is great potential for marine leisure activities, including cruise liners visiting the bay. However, in the absence of dredging, not only is the current harbour an eyesore, it is also smelly and problematic for a town designated by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism as a tourism hub. The Department of Transport may be unsure about the benefits of dredging but if a commitment in this regard was made to the board in order to prevent any further leadránach submissions from me, there would be an appetite for considering amalgamation in the future.

Some people are unhappy because they were not appointed to the board for various reasons and, therefore, want it to be abolished. It has not been widely reported in the local media that we are being asked to hand over our guns and all our assets to Cork Harbour without a quid pro quo. It is as if we are being asked to get married before finding out if we are compatible. That cannot work. Apart from the snippets I have read from audited accounts, I should mention that within the assets base, the board of the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners purchased the railway pier, which was in the ownership of the town council. That was a very important asset in the development of the harbour.

Under old legislation going back to imperial times, the Bantry estate, Lord Bantry and the Whites owned the entire foreshore rights around Bantry Bay. Although it sticks in my craw, we had to buy it from them for approximately €200,000, but it is a valuable asset. A contract has been signed subject to some conditions but a fiftieth of what was bought for €200,000 is agreed to be sold to a private developer for perhaps €600,000 or €700,000. In other words there is potential if a small bit can be sold.

Where is the quid pro quo? If Cork takes it over, we would be handing over very valuable assets and track record without getting an obvious return from this legislation. Perhaps I am blind but I have studied the Bill closely and cannot see any return.

People sometimes rubbish harbour boards, local authorities and different organisation. I take the liberty to read into the record the note from the chairman of the board on the preparation of the accounts that go to the Department. It shows professionalism in how it carries out its duty. It meets at least once a month and sometimes more often and there are sub-committees. The note states:

I would like to welcome everyone to the AGM of the Bantry Harbour Board. While writing up this report today and reflecting on what has happened throughout the year, I note the experiences this year as chairman created many new challenges and experiences for me. Cargo figures are down due to market forces. However, reports on the terminal indicate they are optimistic about improvement in the next few years.

When driving back to Castletownbere last week, with a view of Bantry Bay, there were three substantial oil tankers waiting because of bad weather and heavy swells, as they could not tie up to the single point mooring buoy. They had to wait until the weather calmed. If those three substantial tankers went into Cork Harbour they would probably block it as there would not be facilities for them.

The chairman's address continues:

As you are aware this year the Harbours (Amendment) Bill has been published and is now on Committee Stage. All political, legal and financial avenues are being explored to retain our independent status. We have reiterated our preferred option of staying independent to the Minister for Transport and we met with the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, in the harbour office to discuss the situation. We have also met the political representatives in the area to support our case.

During the past year we had a further meeting with Port of Cork Company officials because a due diligence report could not be finalised until such a time as we can clarify the ownership of the properties we own.

That is nearly sorted out. The address continues:

We are now in a position to allow the due diligence process to be completed. Once we have this in place we should take the opportunity to discuss the matter of amalgamation further and we should also continue working on our case for strengthening corporatisation. The slipway at Whiddy is completed and working very satisfactorily.

I compliment the Minister of State, who officially opened the slipway. Although millions were spent on Whiddy Island, the access point for an ambulance or emergency vehicle at the terminal meant driving there was a bit like making a landing in the Second World War — one drove on to the gravel and sand and hoped for the best. There is now a decent slipway, which should probably have been there years ago. It is a positive development.

The letter from the chairman continues:

The foreshore licence details for the inner harbour development site are being advertised for public comment. This is the key to kick-start Bantry's marine and leisure developments that will boost the town's economic activity. The marine developed in the inner harbour will complement the commercial development, as the hotel and apartments on the old Murphy and O'Connor site will also greatly encourage development of the Harbour View road site.

The multi-purpose plan, which includes extension of the existing pier, should satisfy all present and should secure a sustainable future for everyone concerned. Working with the full support of Cork County Council and Bantry town council I am confident we will succeed with this plan.

I would like to thank Mr. Pat Keane for his very valued experience in advising us on a lot of very complex harbour board issues, with which he helped me over the last year. I would also like to acknowledge the services of Alec O'Donovan on the board and he is a very critical and valid part of the Bantry board's business activity. I thank Captain Farnin and Captain O'Regan for their ongoing support and services to the harbour board.

This part of the address indicates a very good relationship with the Port of Cork Company. The letter continues:

The sub-committee of the board play a fundamental part in the operation of the authority. I would like to thank the chairman of the audit committee, Letty Baker, and members Michael Hennebry and Eugene Cronin, for giving their time to the new and very important functions of complying with the code of practice of good governance in State bodies.

Environmental issues are also top of the agenda for any harbour board and the bay users' forum, with chairman Eugene Cronin, and members Kathleen Tessyman and David Shiels, dealing in an enabled manner with difficult concerns of the stakeholders in the bay over the past year.

I wish to thank Anna Goggin for her dedicated service and Paul O'Sullivan for secretarial work in dealing with the day-to-day duties in the harbour office. I would like to thank Michael Hennebry for his assistance as vice chairman and all the board members for their commitment and genuine interest in the board. I also thank the Department of the Communications, Energy and Natural Resource, engineers — in Clonakilty, Mr. John O'Keeffe and Cormac O'Donoghue in Tralee. They were extremely helpful throughout the year.

I finish by saying I enjoyed my time as chairman.

The address finishes by wishing the board well looking to the future and so on.

I read this to document the very professional manner in which the board is run, with the support and regular engagement with officials in the relevant Department. It is important to acknowledge that these people are very professional and efficient, with a track record to show this. They have learnt by their mistakes.

Cork has a large port company, which is an independent and professional corporate unit. It has very big plans. On why we should hand over to Cork, I refer to a couple of paragraphs from a recent report in a The Examiner dealing with the Cork side. The headline of the report is "Port firm cannot finance dock move" so they have their own problems. The article, written by Michelle McDonagh, is short and states:

The overall viability of the Port of Cork could be seriously hit if the company has to take on the cost of relocating its operations on the city quays to make way for the €1 billion redevelopment of the docklands. Under Cork City Council's plans for the development of the south dockland, the Port of Cork would have to relocate from the city quays and Ford's Wharf at a cost of approximately €58.3 million.

However, the port company has vowed to stay in the quays and resist any relocation attempt until the funding is put in place. This port has opposed an application by Cork City Council for a proposed new road network involving the construction of two bridges to facilitate dockland development. Ger Lyons of Deloitte & Touche told the oral hearing in Cork yesterday that he had undertaken a financial analysis of Port of Cork operations which would be affected by the construction of the eastern gateway bridge and the Water Street bridge. He explained, "It is estimated that relocating the operations currently undertaken at city quays and Ford's wharf will cost in the region of €58.27 million."

To quote from what he says: "where the capital cost is largely funded through debt, the financing will have a significant impact on the debt position of the Port of Cork and potentially the overall viability of the business".

Mr. Lyons also said that between 2004 and 2008, the city quays and Ford's Wharf had generated over €9.26 million in income and represented 40% of the total of the company's profits last year. He told the public hearing that as of 31 December 2008, the port had net assets of €113.1 million and that a sum of €58.27 million would represent approximately 51% of these assets. He stated that this would be a significant burden on the port's operations, balance sheet debt, financing and, therefore, company viability.

Cork harbour master, Captain Pat Farnan, said that while any bridge over the navigational channel would impose additional risks, these could generally be managed. However, two opening bridges in close proximity would inevitably increase the risk of incidents. He noted that the application before An Bord Pleanála made it clear that commercial activities at the city quays were now unlikely to be relocated downstream before both bridges were built. He said the council's environmental impact statement failed to take into account the consequence for road traffic of closing both bridges for up to 35 minutes for a single ship arriving and 70 minutes for multi-ship movements. Captain Farnan stated that the application on the part of the city council should, therefore, be rejected until such time as there is certainty surrounding the acquisition of the city quays and the relocation of commercial activities downstream, thereby avoiding the navigational and commercial risks inherent in attempting to conduct commercial activities at the city quays with two bridges in place. In his opening statement earlier this week, David Holland, SC, acting on behalf of the Port of Cork Company, informed the oral hearing that if the port did not relocate, the massive docklands project would not proceed and so the city council's application must be refused as premature.

The costs relating to the planned dredging of the inner harbour at Bantry and part of the development relating thereto currently stand at €12 million. Some €3 million of this was already in place when I lost my seat as a Deputy 18 months ago. The Port of Cork Company has major financial plans, which I laud and with which I wish it good luck, and has indicated the huge costs it would incur in moving downstream from Ford's Wharf. In my opinion, the company is never likely to entertain spending money in Bantry except for essential works. It would perceive many of the plans we have as being extraneous.

I wish to refer to two reports in order to offer arguments in support of my amendments. The first of these is the PricewaterhouseCoopers, PWC, report done for the port of Bantry in Cork, which was published in 2002, and the second relates to the economic case for the dredging of the inner harbour at Bantry Bay, which was compiled by Raymond Burke, consultant, and which was published in 2006.

Section 18 of the Bill sounds the death knell in respect of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners and a number of critical issues of concern relating thereto. As already stated, there will be no quid pro quo and the legislation reads like the last will and testament of the Bantry Harbour board. The latter will be buried and the Port of Cork Company will be the main beneficiary. However, those who live in Bantry and the surrounding areas will not benefit.

I wish to refer to some parts of the executive summary of the PWC report in order that the Minister of State might know from where I am coming. This report was, I am quite certain, submitted to the Department in January 2002. The executive summary states that Bantry Port is divided into the principal areas of the outer harbour — comprising an oil terminal situated at Whiddy Island, and Leahill Quarry pier, a private quay located halfway between Castletownbere and Glengarriff on the northern shore of the bay — and Bantry Harbour, located in Bantry town and comprising Bantry pier, which is primarily used for fishing and supporting mariculture activities, and the railway pier, which is currently unused. These are the assets we will be handing over to the Port of Cork Company. In addition, we will also be obliged to cede control of the piers at Glengarriff, Adrigole, Trafrask, Gerahies, Gort na Cille, etc.

Some people forget that the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners have power over the entire bay from Sheep's Head to Dursey Head, with the exception of the Castletownbere inner harbour, which is controlled by the Castletownbere Harbour board — a separate entity that comes under the control of the Department. It is a substantial asset.

The PWC report states that a decision was made to corporatise Bantry Port so that in future it would operate under the aegis of the Harbours Act 1996. It indicates that this decision followed a formal submission made by the harbour commissioners in 2000 to the then Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, which demonstrated that corporatisation best served the interests of the port and the relevant bay users. The report further states that, in the context of the Harbours Act 1996, the commissioners defined the port company's primary objectives would, inter alia, include being a successful commercial port operator and performing to the highest standard of legal and regulatory compliance.

I referred earlier to consultation. I have engaged in a comprehensive study of the Bill before the House. If the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, or the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, undergo last-minute Pauline conversions and see the light, everything will be fine because section 18 will be deleted. If, however, the Bill is passed, the Minister of the day will have the power to amalgamate Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners and the port with Cork. I understand that there is a second option under which the Minister will be empowered to transfer the operation of the port to the local authority. When there was a vote within the harbour board in 2001 or 2002, we unanimously opposed being swallowed up by Cork Port. An extremely heated debate took place on that occasion. I was one of three of the 11 people present who expressed interest in the local authority taking over Bantry Port. My reason for doing so was that the then manager had committed €1 million towards the development of the inner harbour if we chose to go down that road. However, local authorities no longer have any money and I do not believe this second option remains realistic.

The PWC report to which I have been referring is probably somewhat out of date. However, it states that activities at the port include the storage and transshipment of oil to the terminal at Whiddy Island, currently operated by Bantry Terminals Limited. In 2001, volumes of oil dealt with at the terminal amounted to 700,000 tonnes. Other activities include the export of quartzitic sandstone to European markets by Tarmac Fleming, which has a quarry at Leahill. Exports of such sandstone in 2001 amounted to 800,000 tonnes.

The PWC report also states that a fishing fleet of ten vessels operated out of Bantry Bay at the time of compilation. It indicates that these were primarily involved in fishing for shrimp, prawns, crabs, lobsters and so on and that they landed catches amounting to an estimated 1,000 tonnes per annum. The report also refers to groupings which operate extensive seafarms under the auspices of the Bantry Fish Farming Co-operative, the annual production relating to which historically amounted to 9,000 tonnes. It states that other activities in the harbour relate to visiting cruise liners and transit traffic to Castletownbere fisheries harbour. The report also indicates that direct bay user employment during the period in question amounted to approximately 180 and says that these activities resulted in substantial direct investment — estimated by the harbour commissioners at €69 million — in facilities by bay users. This is very significant because it indicates a thriving, active and financially successful harbour board. Does one really expect the Port of Cork Company, in its endeavours to build the largest container facility in Ireland — good luck to it because it is badly needed — is interested in catching shrimp, prawns, crabs and lobsters in Bantry Bay? There is fish farming of scallop off Whiddy Island. I mentioned recently that the largest abalone factory in the northern hemisphere takes water from Bantry Bay. The board of the Port of Cork Company would have no interest in those activities which would not be protected going forward.

The harbour commissioners have successfully developed and prioritised a movement control regime, pollution control regime and a water quality monitoring system which have successfully met the unique requirements of Bantry Port. They emphasise the importance of preserving and further developing the above. We have pride in our area. Before fish farmers can harvest mussels, the Marine Institute, marine scientists and laboratory technicians take samples of water from Bantry Bay. If the water does not comply with a very strict EU regime in regard to toxins and if the level is over a specific amount, the bay is closed. If this Bill is enacted, will the Port of Cork Company, which is located 60 miles away, keep Bantry Bay clean?

In the 1970s, a Fine Gael-Labour Party coalition set up the Bantry Harbour board. Peter Barry was the then Minister. The reason it was set up was that there were two major oil spills which, if they happened today, would feature on CNN and Sky. We had to deal with the Tribulous, a huge Shell tanker. Unfortunately, a diver was lost when he was sucked into a huge gaping hole in the ship. There was also the episode with the famous Kowloon Bridge. People in the Department forget about that and say it is history but it could happen again. The Kowloon Bridge, an iron ore carrier, was a floating disaster. Thankfully, it had left Bantry Bay but, in bad weather, all its sailors and officers were lifted to safety. The Cathaoirleach may say I am deviating but this is all about Bantry Bay and Bantry Port. The Kowloon Bridge sank off Baltimore at a place called the Stag's Head and it is an eyesore for fishermen.

Bantry Bay and the west coast of Ireland was a graveyard for abandoned ships and we had to introduce legislation to try to control the situation. In the inner harbour in Castletownbere, just outside the Minister's jurisdiction, the Bardini Reefer was scuttled during the night. The owners got the money from the insurance company and abandoned it. The Government has been left with the mess. The wreck is still there and it is an absolute disgrace.