Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

Although I have said it before, may I remind Members of what we are doing here and the history of this matter? Five or six years ago, a high level review of the State's commercial sea ports recommended the amalgamation of Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners with the Port of Cork Company. Those recommendations and the consultation process that informed them fed into the ports policy statement which is now Government policy. That statement was published and extensively discussed three or four years ago. It was subject to an intensive consultation process before and after publication. The process has continued in respect of the harbours we are discussing and, as mentioned earlier, we are talking about the due diligence report.

The Government's ports policy statement clearly indicated that the continued operation of the country's regional harbours under the outdated provisions of the Harbours Act 1946 was unsustainable. The statement recommended the transfer of those harbours to relevant local authority control or, in cases where significant commercial traffic still existed, that consideration should be given to placing the harbours under relevant port company control. It is because of the quantity of commercial traffic in Bantry and Fenit that the proposal has come about to link them to existing ports. If Bantry did not have the oil terminal it would already have been transferred, or would be in the process of being transferred, to Cork County Council. Were it not for the commercial traffic and the need for commercial expertise, were it not for Liebherr in Fenit, for example, there would be no need to put Fenit into the Shannon-Foynes Port Company. It would not be necessary from the point of view of fishing or the marina, but it is because of the commercial traffic. It is a case of how one handles commercial traffic and it is Government policy to try to link them to a commercial port that has the professional expertise.

I answered Senator O'Donovan's earlier questions about the due diligence report and other issues. The Senator then talked about the transfer date and what could happen. He is a solicitor, unlike myself, and he read out the legal jargon contained in the Bill with great passion. All the details concerning the transfer date refer to what would legally happen if everything else occurred, including the consultation process and legal paperwork. The material the Senator read out is probably a direct copy from other Bills which contain such legal phraseology. The same provision already exists, almost word for word, in the 1996 Act to allow for a transfer to local authorities. The same legal wording applies to anyone who is signing a will and while the Senator made it sound very dramatic, it is nearly a standard provision. It already applies, almost word for word, so it does not have the great significance the Senator implied. However, if the consultation and due diligence go ahead and if it is all agreed at local level, works out and is transferred, then the legal process to which the Senator referred eventually would take place.

I am aware of the letter the Senator read out from the Irish Ports Association, but I am surprised by the way in which he spoke about Bantry Harbour board. He said that if this legislation goes through, the board would almost throw in the towel and it would be a fait accompli. I am horrified by that but I do not believe the Senator meant it. I do not believe that would be the attitude locally. If the Bantry Harbour board has such deeply held views on this matter, it would be taking a firm part in the consultations and negotiations that must go on. It would do its best so that its aspirations and dreams would be copperfastened in whatever structure emerges, be it with the port of Cork, the county council or whatever. The Senator is not doing his own people any justice by pretending that everything would be signed, sealed and delivered once this Bill goes through. This is enabling legislation and, as I have explained before, it will not take effect immediately. If it takes effect at all, it will be after due diligence, due process and consultation have been undertaken.

The national oil reserve is a matter for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan. I cannot speak or act with authority on the state of the national oil reserve, including how many days' oil reserves are in Bantry terminal or elsewhere. I do not want to get into that. It is because of the commercial expertise of the port of Cork that any potential merger is viewed as being appropriate to Bantry. There is linkage already, including an arrangement between Bantry and the port of Cork on professional expertise for the handling and management of the oil terminal. That is what we are trying to do by developing best practice to use expertise and have linkages to big ports for smaller locations such as Bantry and Fenit which have commercial traffic.

The Senator said that at one stage it looked as if Bantry was going to be designated as a port. While the Senator may have a different view as of now, it is my view and that of the Department that based on the level of business activity in Bantry at present — and I accept that it is doing all right — including turnover, profitability and throughput, the scale of business in Bantry or Fenit is not really sufficient for them to be turned into ports. Corporatisation as a commercial port company confers major financial and corporate governance responsibilities. It is not just the case that one would be boss in one's own domain. The control of Bantry Port would still be in Bantry, but that would bring responsibilities. That is the reason a merger between a port company with significant commercial trade and a smaller regional port offers economies of scale.

If all the things read out by the Senator with regard to the expansion of Whiddy Island and Bantry Bay etc. happened, the port might be big enough to stand alone. However, that is just one consultant's report and I do not know how real its proposals are or whether they will be implemented. If Bantry developed significantly and there was more commercial traffic, it could, perhaps, be considered for corporatisation again. However, that is a big "if" and is too far ahead. We can only deal with the situation as it is today, we cannot look around corners or predict what will happen.

There are already professional links between Bantry and Cork in the area of harbour master duties etc. This is only right as there is much professionalism in Cork. Under the Harbours Act, it is Government policy that port companies must be self-financing and not reliant on Government funding. This is the fundamental issue. If there was enough traffic in either Fenit or Bantry to allow them to stand alone, they would have to be able to survive without funding. They could not be designated ports like Dublin or Waterford and still receive Government funding. They must be one or the other.

We have had a good discussion of the issues and have gone through the history of the situation. Senator O'Sullivan provided good detail of what is happening in the Shannon Estuary area and I hope the liquid gas plant at Ballylongford goes ahead and gets over its problems, be they related to planning or foreshore issues. Senator Buttimer came at the issues from a different perspective. He sees Cork Port getting involved in Bantry as something that pulls Cork down. That will not happen. However, it is to cater for these views that these discussions take place.

This Bill just provides another option, but it is subject to the due diligence report and the detailed consultation we have agreed to, which would have happened anyway but has been formalised by being included in the Bill. If in one, two or three years' time it seems to be the majority view that a merger takes place, which was the recommendation of experts previously, Government policy will be to try to make that happen. However, there will be plenty of local consultation on the due diligence report, which will be given to Bantry for discussion there. Everything can and will be done to facilitate that. It would be rather foolish to think that everybody will come on board.

Dublin Port is a big port, yet other activities take place there, including sailing and yacht club activities. It is possible to have an arrangement whereby the other uses of the port can be taken on board to some extent, although the good people of Clontarf might not fully agree on that. While it is a struggle, it is possible to have different uses catered for in a port. It is Government policy to try to achieve this and we are trying to do that in this Bill.

If the main players on the ground, namely, Cork Port and the Bantry Harbour Commissioners, cannot come together in a sensible way, other options, such as the local authority or a private company, must be possible. It is, however, policy not to leave smaller harbour commissions on their own and to try to link them with a bigger port if they have significant traffic, as Bantry has, or with the local authority. Local authorities around the country have already taken over a number of them.

I have heard the concerns of Senator O'Donovan, but I hope we can move on, let the negotiations take place at local level and see what comes out in a year or two, or whatever length of time it takes, from the discussions between Cork Port, Bantry Harbour Commissioners and everybody else from the Bantry area with a point of view to express on the issue.