Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

It was clear from the rather long debate on Committee Stage that the potential transfer of these two harbours to ports nearby would be a fairly difficult and contentious issue. As I said many times on Committee Stage, this is an enabling provision that has been discussed at different levels and in different reports for approximately ten years. The Government's ports policy statement issued four years ago was the bible, so to speak, and this Bill was an attempt to provide a legislative framework for it.

During the course of the debate on the section concerned, it was said repeatedly that the introduction of such a provision should be dependent upon the completion of the due diligence process, which is under way. Talks are ongoing and the Bantry harbour commissioners have talked to Cork port officials for a number of years. The ideal situation would be that due diligence and other forms of consultation would be completed before this Bill was introduced, but it is difficult to get space in the timetable of the Dáil or the Seanad. It has been worked on since the ports policy document was issued some years ago. I accept it would have been better if the timing of various matters had worked out differently. It is important to stress that the introduction of an enabling process is not dependent upon the completion of such a process.

The 1996 Act introduced two enabling provisions in respect of regional harbours such as Bantry, which ensured they could be transferred to a local authority or that a private company could be established. Senator McCarthy was correct that this Bill will not remove the power to abolish the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. We did not need legislation to do that. Even without the introduction of this Bill three or six months ago, if the Bill is defeated and the Government is brought down, the power to abolish Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners is there, and has been there for 12 or 13 years. It could have been abolished in two ways. A private company could have been set up or it could have been transferred to a local authority, which has happened to a number of smaller harbours and harbour commissioners. The Senator is correct, but the provision is only an additional option by which it could be abolished.

The sequence has come in a different way. As I said several times on Committee Stage, it was always the intention that there would be ample local discussion and consultation on the status of Bantry and Fenit if they were to be transferred to any port. Such local consultation would have been in addition to the many years of high level consultation and discussion that took place.

Senator Donohoe tabled an amendment on consultation, which would have taken place. He felt it would be better to put it into legislation and make it a statutory commitment, and I said we would look at that issue. The wording by the parliamentary draftsman puts slightly different language on it but it is almost 100% the same as what the Senator suggested. I am glad other Senators did not accept it. Perhaps when they see the formal wording, which puts it on a statutory basis, they will accept it has helped people to see that the process will go through.

Regarding who can be consulted, everybody and anybody can be involved. There will be an advertisement in the newspaper and it will be up to individuals, local groups representing whomever and others to make applications. There may be direct consultation with individuals and major groups; that is another aspect. Everybody and anybody may be included and it may well be that the harbour commissioners might like to take charge of the situation at local level and co-ordinate some of the local views. Everyone has the right to make a submission. People may organise local meetings or discussions on the matter and formalise into groups but any individual, whomever he or she is, can make a submission. We may not talk to everybody, but everybody has the right to make a submission. We may talk to some of the major groups, including public representatives. It is intended to engage with the relevant stakeholders in that regard.

The suggested amendment, which would provide for statutory consultation, would give a good platform for all issues to be discussed and analysed prior to any further move forward or recommendation in the future. I hope people accept that. Senator Donohoe put forward the original idea, but it shows that we want to reach out to local communities and people and to hear their opinions and views. There may be some truth in what people say about the consultation which went on in the past and about consultants' reports, which is that the small man was not consulted and some consultant-led reports are dominated by large pressure groups rather than the individual from whatever side of the fence.

In this situation, everybody can respond. I hope when the consultation process takes place public representatives and others locally will give it some energy and publicity so that people concerned will not say they did not hear about it and will want to submit a view six months too late. There will be ample time for all these things to happen and at local community level people will be aware of them and will have time to make their views known.

I will not say I enjoyed Committee Stage. It was rather long, but there were some interesting comments. I admit I am from an inland constituency in Dublin.