Seanad debates

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Harbours (Amendment) Bill 2008: Committee Stage (resumed)

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)

The Bill and the amendment with which we are dealing have serious implications for the port of Cork. I wish to deal specifically with the proposed move out of Cork city. As the Minister of State is aware, delays in this regard are having major implications for the proposed Cork docklands development. Perhaps he might ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to publish the Cork docklands forum report which is long overdue and which has been with the Government since last June. This pivotal report relates to the development of the port of Cork and to the docklands authority there. I am aware, as a result of leaked information, that the report calls for the establishment of a Cork docklands authority. In light of yesterday's revelations regarding the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, I wonder if Cork should not go down this particular route.

It is important that the role of Cork City Council should be accentuated and that the council should remain the lead agency in respect of this matter. There should be consultation with other stakeholders to drive the project forward. Did consultation take place with the authorities in Bantry and those in Cork? Why is the Minister of State proposing to remove councillors from the board? These people are elected representatives, they are the voice of the people and the local authorities and they bring with them a wealth of experience, knowledge and intelligence. Under the provisions of the Bill, however, they will be cast to one side. In a spirit of bipartisanship, I wish to state that councillors from all political parties have served Cork city and county well while acting as members of the board. Suddenly, these people are to be removed from their positions.

The port of Cork is extremely important to Cork city and to the Cork area strategic plan, CASP. In addition, it is vital to the creation of a new mini-city in the Cork docklands. I have a number of questions with regard to what is being done in this legislation, especially in respect of the relocation of the port of Cork. Senators O'Donovan and O'Sullivan referred to this matter earlier. Does the Port of Cork Company want the power that is to be bestowed upon it? It is important a properly functioning and viable port of Cork should be developed.

I pay tribute to Mr. Brendan Keating, Mr. Michael McCarthy and Mr. Denis Healy who, on behalf of the Port of Cork Company, have provided strong leadership and great direction. I hope that as a consequence of their work, there will be a Cork-Swansea ferry this year because such a service is badly needed. It would be of immense benefit to the Acting Chairman's home town of Killarney to have tourists coming in to Cork by ferry. I hope the Government recognises that we need vibrant ferry services between Ireland and Britain. I am sure Senator O'Donovan agrees with me in respect of that matter. Such services are critical to the development of the port, to west Cork and to the people of the kingdom of Kerry. Under this section, will the Port of Cork Company be facilitated in taking its eye off the ball in terms of its strategic plan and developing the port for the betterment of the region?

Senator O'Sullivan spoke about a bad marriage. The proposals amount to a mixed marriage which nobody wants. I have not heard anything concrete from the port of Cork to suggest it endorses the proposals.

The issue of oil security raised by Senator O'Sullivan impacts on all of us. In this connection, what are the plans for Whitegate? I am disturbed by the report in The Sunday Times of 1 February to which Senator O'Sullivan referred which states:

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.

What will happen in the case of Bantry, Whiddy Island and Whitegate in the event of an oil crisis? The Whitegate refinery has played a major role in Cork over the decades. I remember as a child that one could set one's clock by Mr. May who lived behind my family and caught the bus outside the entrance of the estate where he was dropped off again in the evening on his return from the refinery.

What plans are in place for Whiddy Island? It is extraordinary that a recent remembrance service commemorated the 30th anniversary of the tragic fire on the island caused by the explosion of the Betelgeuse. I remember as a child watching Tom McSweeney reporting on the incident on RTE and recall a photograph of the area engulfed in huge flames carried in the then Cork Examiner. I am sure the owners of the Irish Examiner regret changing the newspaper's name from the Cork Examiner. I apologise for digressing.

What will be the role of Whitegate vis-À-vis Whiddy Island? Senator O'Donovan referred to a pipeline. What plans are in place to engage with stakeholders in Cork? It is extraordinary that this issue has developed into one of Cork city versus the county when we should have an all-embracing strategic plan which allows the ports to develop. Our ports are entry and exit points for goods and equipment and focal points for tourism and leisure. What do we want to achieve?

Mr. Ger Lyons of Deloitte & Touche indicated at the oral hearing on the port of Cork that the city quays and Ford's Wharf had generated more than €9.26 million in income, which was 40% of the company's profits last year. Why would a port authority with assets of more than €113 million want to become an all-embracing authority when its mission and rationale are to relocate and develop a strong Cork Port? While I welcome this objective on which the company has presented excellent reports and plans, I am concerned at the absence of joined-up thinking. For example, a major flaw in the proposal to move the port to Ringaskiddy was the absence of a rail link

The Bill provides for the amalgamation of the various ports in the county. I love the term "without prejudice". The Minister of State may correct me if I am wrong but it appears the proposal would create competition between the harbours of Cork, Bantry, Shannon-Foynes, Tralee and Fenit. Are we pursuing a similar policy to that chosen regarding the State airports when Dublin Airport Authority was made the umbrella body for Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports? I understand the Minister of State was a Minister in the Department of Transport for a period. We now have a state of stasis with no progress made on addressing the debt of Cork Airport or establishing it as an independent entity. Will the ports be subject to the same competitive pressures?

Will the profits generated in the Cork docklands be distributed among the various stakeholders or will they be used to develop Cork? If Bantry, Fenit or Shannon-Foynes port makes profits, will they be retained in the port in question? The relevant section refers to the transfer of accounts and assets. What will be done with the assets?

I am disappointed that Cork Port has not been moved. However, I also understand the frustration felt by the residents of Ringaskiddy and Carrigaline regarding the proposal to move the port further down the N28. The infrastructure in the proposed new site is not suitable and the move would be a major imposition on the residents of both towns. This returns us to the fundamental point, namely, the absence of consultation. Why are councillors being removed from the board? I praised the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, for agreeing to include elected representatives in the new regulatory authority established under the legislation. All sides agreed on that issue. I cannot understand the Government's mania for precluding local representatives from becoming members of State boards. Politicians have been excluded from almost all State boards. I ask for clarity on the composition of the new board.

I am disappointed at the failure to develop the Cork docklands. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to develop the city and create a new quarter to encompass residential areas, educational facilities, including a UCC campus, health care institutions arising from the amalgamation of the South Infirmary-Victoria Hospital or the establishment of a new hospital, leisure facilities and a conference centre. Cork needs a conference centre and is losing out to Senator Coghlan's home town of Killarney. Dublin has a fine conference centre, the O2, which is worth visiting. Cork needs a convention centre to increase footfall in the city. The port of Cork has succeeded in attracting cruise liners to Cobh, creating and sustaining jobs and boosting tourism.

The decision to put on hold the relocation of the port of Cork and the lack of Government support for the plans have frozen and paralysed the Cork docklands project. While it is legitimate to argue that the budget provided a tax break for the Seveso sites, not one Finance Bill has provided support for the proposed eastern gateway bridge or to Cork City Council to develop the docklands. This is a matter of concern.

The Government proposes to create a harbours "superpower" at a time when the Port of Cork Company should be exclusively engaged in developing the port. In recessionary times it is not a case of any port will do but one of being able to draw up plans and invest resources in developing Cork Port.

I am concerned that if this Bill is passed, we will see a dilution of policy and procedures in the Port of Cork, and I do not want that to happen. I cannot speak as someone from west Cork, although I have relations in Kilmichael, but, as Senator O'Donovan knows well, my loyalty is to the Port of Cork. However, I do not want to see anything happening which will dilute the economic importance of Cork, whether west Cork or elsewhere. It is the rebel county and, as Senator O'Donovan knows well, we will stick together. It is important to put people first.

There is a common theme here, which is the Minister, Deputy Dempsey. He started off with the airports and now he is back with the ports. What does he want to achieve? According to the Explanatory Memorandum, he proposes to reduce the number of directors and the number of ports. What is the reason behind that? Has it not been proved that we should not reduce, that we should keep what we have and accentuate the growth of each port?

It is important we put on record the fact that Cork city requires the docklands project to be moved forward. It will provide the economic stimulus Cork needs. It is dependent on the Port of Cork, Cork City Council and Government and the private stakeholders working together to progress the Cork docklands. That is what we need to do because if we do not do so, we will have the biggest white elephant ever. If that is what the Government wants, it will be on its head.

If we are serious about the development of Cork city and, in particular, the move of the Port of Cork, assistance should be provided. Likewise the development of the Cork docklands should be prioritised by Government. We should stand behind Cork City Council and let it become the lead agency.

Will the Minister of State explain why we are taking councillors off the board?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.