Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

It gives me great encouragement to see my colleagues offer me moral support and sustenance. I will read a letter from the Irish Ports Association and then I will return to the Bill. The letter was written to the Secretary General of the Department of Transport. I am not sure of the date but I think the letter is quite recent as it is appropriate to the Bill. The letter concerns the Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008.

Dear Ms O'Neill,

I refer to the above mentioned Bill and particularly to section 18 of same, which provides amongst other things for the transfer of the functions, assets and liabilities of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners to the Port of Cork Company and from Tralee and Fenit Pier and Harbour Company to Shannon-Foynes Port Company. [The letter is from the Irish Ports Association, which is a valued organisation.]

My members in Bantry, Shannon-Foynes and Tralee and Fenit are totally opposed to the transfer proposals, which they see as being without merit. In this opposition they have the full support of the association. Both Bantry and Tralee and Fenit are serving a local region and it is the view of the association that these interests are best served by a local board, democratically drawn from and concentrating on the needs and best interests of the local region, and that this principle should not be sacrificed to the perceived administrative convenience of the Department of central government.

All three ports concerned are opposed to any transfer or merger and the association supports them in this stance. We would ask that in the absence of agreement between the parties that no transfers should take place. We would further urge that the offending section be withdrawn from the Bill at this stage.

That is a letter from the Irish Ports Association. I do not see a date on it. I want to include that letter in case the Minister of State or other people think I am going off on a tangent. If a plebiscite were held in Fenit, which is historically known, in the Bantry area, or the local electoral area serving them, it would be far more emphatic than the referendum held recently. It would be 99% in favour of a "No" vote.

I will continue with my last will and testament, if I can refer to section 18 as that, as it signals the final demise for both Bantry and Fenit. Section 18(5) states:

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.

I could envisage a situation in Bantry where one of the mussel boats breaks down and is parked for two or three days. The local harbour master will tell them they cannot stay there forever and to move on when the boat is fixed, but a person from Cork would not know what a mussel raft was and if he was out in a rowing boat, he would not know how to row it. Common sense prevails when one has local autonomy.

Section 18(6) states:

"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."

That is emphatic, leaving no wriggle room for manoeuvre. Tiny sea worms, which are sometimes found in shellfish, would have no wriggle room in the Bill. The subsection is crystal clear.

Strict procedures are in place to ensure corporate governance. For example, when Bantry harbour board buys and sells anything, it must obtain prior consent. The board made mistakes in the past but we all learn from our mistakes. One of the issues that held up the due diligence related to the foreshore but that was totally outside the control of the board and its solicitors. The Bill is so all embracing and powerful that if it is passed, I will have to return to the board, of which I am no longer a member, and say, "I am sorry, I have let you down. This is a fait accompli and it is a nail in your coffin".

The Minister of State said the Minister under existing legislation can by order have a port taken over by the local authority. Baltimore is another port in west Cork dear to my heart and the harbour board there would love to have a home. I attended a meeting five years ago between board members and the then county manager. The facilities were examined and they said if the Department spent €10 million or €15 million on the port, the local authority would take it over but it would not do so now because it does not have the money to do it. Kinsale is another example and, closer to the Minister of State's home, what became of Balbriggan? I recall a furious debate on the issue of Balbriggan Port. Is it better off now? Did the local authority take it over? Have improvements been made?

Following the enactment of the legislation, the asset base and the development of Bantry harbour will succumb to, and be taken over by, Cork Port at the stroke of a pen. The Minister of State has said on a number of occasions this is only enabling legislation and it will not be implemented tomorrow or the day after. Why not let the damn thing be parked for four or five years?

Section 18(7) states: "If, immediately before the transfer day concerned, any legal proceedings to which the relevant harbour commissioners are a party are pending, the relevant port company's name shall be substituted in the proceedings for the name of the relevant harbour commissioners, and the proceedings shall not abate because of the substitution." That is a powerful weapon. If the harbour board in Bantry, for example, took legal proceedings against ConocoPhillips, the owners of Whiddy Island, over oil pollution, which has been threatened previously, the Bill provides that Cork Port would take over the running of the case. It would have power under the legislation to do so.

Section 18(8)(a) states, "With effect from the transfer day concerned, the Port of Cork Company in respect of Bantry Bay Harbour and the Shannon Foynes Port Company in respect of Tralee and Fenit Pier and Harbour may make bye-laws under sections 42 and 71." We have tried over the past 15 years at least to sort out by-laws for Bantry harbour. They are still not copperfastened because the process is ongoing and it is difficult. Various groups have to be dealt with such as inshore fishermen, shrimp fishermen, scallop dredgers, shellfish fisherman and those involved in "brideoging", which is the old method of scooping up scallops in shallow water. A "brideog" is a rod with a net on the end. Licensing for aquaculture and mariculture throughout the bay also had be to considered.

This provision would be a major imposition on the Cork Port company and I do know whether its members have the necessary experience because they run a large commercial port. What do they know about "brideoging" or aquaculture and mariculture licensing? Are they aware that under an British by-law going back to the Spanish Armada and Wolfe Tone's arrival in Bantry in 1796, trawling between sunset and sunrise from Shot Head to Sheep's Head is prohibited? I bet if any member of the Cork Port company was asked about this, they would not know about it. I was once asked by local fishermen why that by-law was still in place because it had been breached repeatedly. I fished for herring there as a young man and it was a problem when large trawlers scooped up the herrings and towed away our nets and so on because we were small operators. We made a few bob at it and it was healthy and so on.

Many different facets of harbour life will be affected in Bantry Bay. It has the second deepest channel of water in the world and the largest oil tankers ever built have been tied up at Whiddy Island. For example, the ceiling in the House is approximately 30 ft high. When these tankers were unladen, some still had an 85 ft draft. That illustrates how safe is Bantry Port. That is why due diligence should have been completed and all these issues should have been ironed out in advance of the introduction of the legislation. Locals are fearful because this has not happened. I am not in the House for the good of my health or to use up time. Politicians are tools of the public because we react to public opinion and worry and so on. I am present because people I grew up with and worked with have these concerns. All of them do not necessarily vote for me but I listen to everybody in my home town and region.

Under the legislation, for example, Cork Port company will take control of the local mussel industry. Perhaps the Minister and the Department have not looked beyond the pale and feel Bantry Bay is just about the inner harbour and the ConocoPhillips terminal on Whiddy Island but it is much larger. How much of the national oil reserve is stored on Whiddy Island? Is the Government aware of plans by ConocoPhillips to develop the terminal? I would like to quote from an article concerning Bantry Bay and this Bill. One might ask why I am so suspicious. I have been told that Senator O'Sullivan would like to make a contribution and when I read this into the record, I will give him some air. This article was published on 1 February. It has a photograph of the Minister, Deputy Ryan. The sub-headline states: "€500 million needs to be spent to improve national supplies." If I read this into the record one might understand why there is suspicion in my mind and among those on the Bantry board. It is an interesting article that affects Whiddy and Bantry Bay. Obviously it will affect Bantry Harbour Commissioners or the board in Cork, or whoever is in charge. In The Sunday Times of 1 February, Stephen O'Brien wrote:

The Irish government needs to spend at least €500m improving its "fragile" oil infrastructure to avoid a fuel shortage in the event of disruption to world supplies, according to a new study.

This is another new study. Wait until they get hold of that. It is important because the authority that is to be wound down has charge of the traffic into and out of Whiddy. The article continued:

The assessment of the security of the country's oil reserves, commissioned by Eamon Ryan, the energy minister, warns that Ireland has less than two thirds of the 90-day back-up supply recommended internationally. [Oil security affects everyone.]

Purvin and Gertz, the international energy consultancy, and Byrne O Cleirigh, the Irish consultant engineer, say Ireland needs to spend €250m to double its storage capacity at up to three locations in the south, midwest and east. They recommend expanding storage at Whitegate refinery on Whiddy Island, in Bantry Bay, Co Cork; creating a facility in the Naas/Clane/Sallins area of Co Kildare; and possibly at a third location on the deepwater Shannon estuary, Co Limerick.

They also urge that a further €265m investment be considered in up to three strategic pipelines, from Cork to Kildare, Kildare to Dublin and Ireland to Britain. The Department of Finance and Ryan's officials are discussing imposing a 1c levy on a litre of petrol to help pay for improvements.

The report warns that there are "significant risks to Ireland's ability to access supplies" during unusual disruptions to the international markets, because of the fragile nature of some of our infrastructure for importing, storing and distributing oil.

Ireland holds one of the lowest proportions of oil stocks of all International Energy Agency member states. Only about 50 to 60 days of the 90-days net import obligation are held in the country.

While it may not be the brief of the Minister of State, where is the other 40 days' storage? Is it in Ireland, in Whiddy or elsewhere?