Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

The amendment concerns the deletion of the reference to Bantry and the amalgamation with Cork. In 2005, when Mr. Vivian O'Callaghan was the chairman of Bantry harbour board, a senior official from the Department, who shall remain nameless, visited the harbour board by prior arrangement and had a meeting with the full board. The official suggested that Bantry harbour authority should engage in a due diligence process with Cork Port. A cast-iron guarantee was given to the full board — because they had concerns that I am aware of — that any proposed merger with Cork would not and could not happen until the due diligence process was completed and full and frank negotiations took place between Bantry and Cork. Even at that stage, a clear assurance was given that such a merger would only take place after prior agreement by both boards. This section flies in the face of that clearly pronounced policy commitment of the then Minister and his Department.

The question of due diligence is critical in this respect. I do not have the exact date but at that juncture proposals were put in letters from the Department. It was quite open and fair, and there was not a knee-jerk reaction by the board on that date. They considered the matter at length and said they were not going to shut out any possible change. As a result of a meeting in camera, and following phone calls and possibly letters, the Department and Minister of the day were informed that if options were available, including a potential merger with Cork, they would enter into talks. That meeting subsequently took place or was initiated.

Why was the due diligence process put in place initially? I do not want an immediate answer but we can perhaps consider it in the course of the evening or on the next occasion. This due diligence was taken up as an option by Bantry in good faith. Why was it initiated in 2005 at the request of the then Minister and his Department under Government policy? Why was that process not completed before this Bill was published? That is a matter of serious concern. If negotiations are going on — like the peace process in the North — but there is no frankness and openness, then there is a lack of trust. That lack of trust is now palpable at local level.

By agreement with the Department, it was decided that Cork Port, at its expense and through its own experts, would go down the road of due diligence. A draft report was submitted by Cork Port to the Department some time ago, but Bantry Port did not receive a copy of that due diligence report. I am amazed and astounded by this, especially in view of the talk of some kind of a merger. This Bill is more like a shotgun wedding than a courtship and despite the fact consultation was promised, there has been none. Although the report submitted by Cork Port was only a draft report, why was it not provided to Bantry Port? I do not want a casual answer on this. I am aware there were difficulties with regard to legal title, buying foreshore rights and the railway pier. Dealing with these issues took longer than anticipated, but they have been sorted out.

The due diligence report was initiated at the request of the Department and the then Minister but was never completed. The burning question therefore is why the draft report was concealed from the Bantry authority. It requested the report, but the Department wrote back saying it could not compel Cork Port to provide the report to Bantry Port because it was produced by Cork Port. However, I contend it was initiated as part of Government policy and, from the point of view of where we are headed with this Bill, I find it disturbing that it was not sent to Bantry. If the draft report was given to the Department, there was an onus on it or the Minister of the day to share its contents with the Bantry Port authority.

I, as a public representative, never saw the report because it was concealed. What is the reason for the furtiveness and secrecy when there is talk about amalgamation and mergers? Hundreds of people in the Bantry area want to know the reason the draft due diligence report was not submitted. Why was the necessary time not allowed for the process to be completed so that a final due diligence report would be produced and shared?

I am probably quite emotive because I feel strongly about this. The due diligence process was to be the foundation stone for Bantry Harbour and its future. Over the years, different options were put forward. The preferred option was that Bantry would stand alone, as it is doing. The attitude was not to touch it as it was making a few bob and was not costing the State much. It was transparent and complied with corporate governance.

I contend the due diligence report should have been completed. It is dangerous to change horses midstream. Why was there a change of heart on the part of the Department or the Minister? Was it because of the delay? The delay was not going to continue forever, although it was a problem with a legal issue that was delayed for some time. I believe a query on it may have ended up in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the due diligence report was never completed.

There seems to be a veil of secrecy over what is happening. I do not blame the Minister of State for this because he is new to this area. However, I am perturbed the draft report was never given to the Bantry Harbour board. The chairman of the day, who agreed to initiate the report, was wronged and every member of the Bantry Port authority and the harbour master should have seen it. It is very disturbing this did not happen. People may say I am reading more into this than I should but if that is the case, the report should be put on the table, so to speak. I ask the Minister of State to send the draft report to Bantry for examination. I would like to see a copy of it and perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised by it. There is no transparency or openness on the issue and, as a result, there is a nagging in my brain telling me there is something radically wrong or there is something in the draft report that Bantry will not like or may not want to share.

I cannot emphasise enough that this Bill proposes that Bantry and its assets and liabilities, lock, stock and barrel, be taken over by Cork Port. This begs the question why the due diligence report was not completed and the report published. There is still time for the draft due diligence report to be published. The Minister of State has said the report is in the ownership of Cork Port authority, but Cork Port has sent a copy to the Department. Why can the Minister not tell Cork Port authority, or the chairman of the executive there, to pass on the due diligence report to Bantry for the sake of clarity? It should let the Bantry Harbour board members, while they are still in place, study that report. I also urge that the due diligence report be completed and that this aspect of section 18 be parked in the meantime.

There were grave reservations on the part of Bantry when this proposal was put forward by the senior official, a capable man whom I know well. The people of Bantry were nervous about it because they had numerous meetings and had looked at the option of the local authority taking over the port. I favoured that option because I saw it as the lesser of two evils. We also looked at the options of corporatisation, of staying as we were and the Cork option. There were people in favour of all options bar the Cork option.

We took a leap of faith and the chairman of Bantry Port authority agreed — by telephone to the official in question, followed by letter — to go down this road, but that it would be a partnership role in which we would walk, jump and, if it came to it, separate together. However this never happened and it is a concern for me, the harbour board members and the public that there is something sinister in the proposals.

I will probably be proven to be wrong in this regard, but must believe it until such time as we see the draft report. I am sure Senator McCarthy and all the Opposition would love to see what is in the draft due diligence report. If Cork Port states the report is its property and will not share it with Bantry but will give it to the Minister of State and his officials, that is wrong. It is wrong that we have not seen the report.

Another important issue is that I, the Bantry board and its chairman have received written confirmation from the Minister of State's predecessors over the years that if anything were to happen that would affect the future of Bantry Port, as appears to happen in section 18, there would be prior consultation and negotiation. We have debated the issue of consultation day in, day out. With all due respect, I cannot buy the notion that the Bill should be put in place as enabling legislation and then consultation can take place. This is like a shotgun marriage where if people cannot come together amicably and work things out, we put them in handcuffs and force them to come with us whether they like it or not. There is a lack of trust in this.

I am warning the Minister of State, in a political way, of this lack of trust or understanding. This is a pity because there has been a very good working relationship, by and large, with Department officials over the years on the part of Bantry and Cork. However, there is now a lack of trust. Whether it is Cork Port or the Minister of State who is responsible, this must be rectified. It would be very difficult for me to come in on Report or Final Stages and agree to vote for this when I must go back to Bantry to the board of which I was formerly a member and tell them I voted for this but do not know where it is going. That is like taking a leap in the dark, without a match, torch or flashlight for vision. Technically, it would be wrong to do this.

Whatever about Government policy, the suggestion is that this is enabling legislation. It has also been suggested that as it is such, it may not come into effect this year, next year or in five years' time. We do not know. It is disabling as far as Bantry is concerned. It cripples us. Next year, people will wonder what is the point of being a member of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners because at some stage down the road, maybe not under the current Minister because we are in a very volatile situation politically and there might be a change of Government——