Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Feb 2012

Vol. 213 No. 10

Adjournment Matters

Harbour Authorities

Senator Denis O’Donovan

My apologies to the Minister. I left the House to get a message, presuming there would be a vote but that did not happen.

Bantry Harbour has a viable harbour board, which is self-sufficient in that it costs the State little or no money. I am a former member of the board. There has been a sizeable income for the harbour board for the past 15 or 20 years, primarily due to the input of funds from ConocoPhillips. There was a proposal from the Minister's predecessor, Noel Dempsey, to amalgamate Bantry Harbour with Cork Port. I resisted this because of my knowledge of Bantry Bay and the area. Former and current members of Cork Port inform me that they do not want the proposal to take place. Apart from Whiddy Island, there are many intricacies in Bantry. It is designated as a tourist hub, there is inshore fishing and fish farming in the bay. Garnish Island is nearby and people are living on Whiddy Ireland. The Bantry Harbour Board area comprises 80% of Bantry Bay, from Bere Island to Ardnagashel and across the bay.

Bantry Harbour board was set up because of an appalling oil spillage in the bay in 1974. The then Minister, Peter Barry, decided to set up a harbour board because of shipping and the oil reserves on Whiddy Ireland. The board has been run successfully and much money has been spent within the harbour board area by the existing board. The board provided a slipway on Whiddy Ireland, with support from the council and the Government, and a slipway on the mainland. For the first time in my life, there is a roll-on roll-off service onto the island, which can be used by an ambulance or a fire brigade. Having been in town on the night of the Whiddy Ireland disaster, I remember the appalling loss of life and that many mistakes were made. On the basis of providing funds or providing a proper service for the island, ConocoPhillips, shipping in the bay and tourism services, including yachting, there is a mixed grill of facilities in the bay.

Bantry Harbour is self-financing and should stand alone on its merits. When I was a member of the harbour board, we were presented with the option of being taken over by Cork County Council, going down the road of corporatisation — which was my preference — or being taken over by Cork Port. The views of the people in the area, by a large majority, and the near-unanimous view of the harbour board members over the past 20 years is that the least acceptable option is to succumb to Cork Port taking over the board. There may be good commercial reasons for it. I had a four and a half hour debate, which some may call filibustering, where I took issue with the former Minister, Noel Dempsey, about the port authority and a compromise was reached whereby there would be full and proper consultation with the inshore fishermen, the islanders, the tourism organisations and other facets of Bantry Bay before that should happen. Bantry Bay is a unique harbour and I am sure the Minister is aware of the situation. I am worried that the same catalyst for change that existed four years ago is still in the Department. The proposal to amalgamate harbours works in some cases and does not in others, but Bantry is unique. I urge the Minister to leave us as we are. The notion of being taken over by Cork Port is the least acceptable option and one that will be strongly resisted, even by Deputies and councillors of the Government parties.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

The existing policy on regional harbours is as published in the 2005 ports policy statement, namely, that the continued operation of harbours under the Harbours Act 1946 is unsustainable on the grounds of good governance. It proposed that harbours would best achieve their potential through a transfer to local authority ownership or, in the case where harbours had significant commercial traffic; that consideration would be given to bring them under the control of a port company. My Department has worked with the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government over the past number of years to progress the transfers. The transfer of harbours is consistent with the objectives of a reduction in the number of State agencies, strengthening corporate governance of significant State assets, unlocking amenity value of the assets to the benefit of local communities, and enabling the repeal of the Harbours Act 1946.

Some 12 out of a total of 13 harbours have now transferred. In the past few months, Fenit Harbour transferred to Kerry County Council while Baltimore, Kinsale and Arklow harbours transferred to local authorities on 1 January 2012. Bantry Bay Harbour is now the only remaining harbour operating under the Harbours Act 1946. The core business of Bantry Harbour is the oil storage and transhipment terminal on Whiddy Island. The ConocoPhillips oil facilities on Whiddy Island are privately owned. Aquaculture, fishing and tourism are prevalent in the harbour and a small number of cruise liners also visit the harbour each year. The KPMG review of regional ports and harbours published in 1999 first recommended that the harbour authority merge with the Port of Cork. Amalgamation with Cork would provide access to port expertise, marketing, strategic development, planning and the skills required for the regulation of navigation, ship and port security requirements, pilotage, safety, emergency response and pollution etc. Provision was included in the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2009 to allow the amalgamation of Bantry Harbour with the Port of Cork. The Act provides that public consultation must be completed before the transfer can take place and outlines how that consultation should take place in section 18(2)(d).

Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners is the responsible authority under the Harbours Act 1946 for the control, operation and development of Bantry Harbour. Its main role relates to jurisdiction over the waters, for example, responsibility for safety, navigation and pilotage etc. The operation of large oil tankers, bulk carriers and cruise liners in and out of the bay requires specific expertise. The Port of Cork company currently provides a harbourmaster service on a contract basis to assist in this regard.

Work commenced earlier this year to examine the requirements to amalgamate the harbour with the Port of Cork. The process is complex and will include meetings with the Port of Cork and the harbour commissioners, due diligence on Bantry Harbour and an examination of a range of issues, including remedial works, foreshore issues, staff, legal cases and financial accounts, to name but a few. A meeting was held recently between my Department and the Port of Cork, which is positive about the transfer and willing to work with the Department and the harbour towards this objective. Cork already has a very good professional relationship with ConocoPhillips through the oil refinery in Cork Harbour. The Port of Cork also has a contractual arrangement with Bantry to provide professional expertise and a harbour master to bring in large oil tankers and cruise liners into the bay. This is an absolute requirement by the company to operate their business in Whiddy to help mitigate the risks of maritime accidents and environmental damage. A general discussion also took place between my Department and the chairman of the harbour commissioners on a range of issues that will have to be dealt with before any transfer can take place. It is likely that the harbour commissioners will raise a number of issues relating to the proposed transfer and my Department will work closely with the harbour commissioners and with the Port of Cork to address any concerns raised. I will pay close attention to local views on the matter and engage with all stakeholders. There are no proposals to amend the jurisdiction of the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners geographical area as it stands.

Senator Denis O’Donovan

I thank the Minister for his frank response. I am aware of the KPMG report, one of eight dealing with the future of Bantry Harbour. The most recent report was carried out by Ray Burke — not the politician — and suggested Bantry might be better served as a stand alone harbour. When the gun is put to the Minister's head on the point of amalgamation, I hope he will take into consideration the diverse local concerns. Someone from the Port of Cork authority, whose name I will not reveal, told me not so long ago that it is fine to take over responsibility for ConocoPhillips and the operation of Whiddy Ireland, which may increase its capacity and revenue and would be a win-win but the takeover would also involve fish farming and its problems in the bay, tourism, Whiddy Island, liners and other issues. It is a complex area and the Port of Cork will walk away from a takeover unless it is forced to act because the takeover would cause more problems than the Port of Cork would like. It is not as simple as taking over the Whiddy Ireland project and the ConocoPhillips project, which is important to Bantry, the south of Ireland and the State. I thank the Minister for his response. I had the same arguments with the previous Minister.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I thank the Senator for raising the issue and he can be assured I will listen to local views. No rushed decision will be made and the provisions in the legislation on public consultation must be followed. The issue arises because this is the last of 13 harbours and the only one operating under the Harbours Act 1946, which must be repealed sooner rather than later. The Senator mentioned that Bantry Harbour is self-financing, which is true in regard to operating costs, but it requires capital from the State, which will not be forthcoming forever. While corporatisation as an independent port company could be considered as an alternative to a merger with the Port of Cork, questions must be answered in that regard. We have a number of port companies that are not doing very well, one of which is Dundalk, which failed last year. Corporatisation brings costs and obligations that may be difficult. It is not right to rule out corporatisation as an option but there are significant risks in going down that road as an alternative.

Diplomatic Representation

Senator Jim Walsh

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach. This issue has been amplified in this House and elsewhere over a period of time. I note that the recent communication from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade showed a direct saving from closing the Vatican Embassy of €400,000 and another saving from transferring the Italian Embassy. I recognise that in the current climate there is a need for all Departments to cut costs. I understand the embassy in the Vatican was one of the most cost-effective, with an ambassador, a Third Secretary and local administration assistance.

We should examine the salaries paid to ambassadors. I was very surprised to discover, many years ago, that some ambassadors are on a salary commensurate with the position of Secretary General of a Department and all others are paid at assistant secretary level. Given that most expenses are covered, perhaps these salary levels feed into costs and restrict our footprint.

I acknowledge that the Tánaiste stated, at the joint committee meeting and in the Seanad, that if a more cost-effective solution was found he would consider it. He mentioned co-location as a possibility and it would assist in changing the decision and reopening the embassy. Ireland Stand Up appeared before the joint committee today and made some very reasonable points. It would be a pity if the issue became political because it is not about that. Some people in my party, some people in Fine Gael and some people in the Labour Party feel strongly about it. The focus has come upon the latter because the Tánaiste is the leader of the Labour Party. Many people would like to see the situation revert to the status quo since 1929. We have a long-established relationship with the Vatican, which was the fourth mission established abroad following our independence. After the Lateran Treaty, when the Vatican state was established, Ireland was one of the first to establish an embassy. Up to that point, we had representation at the League of Nations, someone in London and someone in Washington. It was good for us because it provided recognition and, as a strongly Catholic country, it was appropriate and reasonable.

Last July, the Tánaiste stated:

Consideration of proposals to reduce our diplomatic network must balance any potential financial savings against the operational and reputational costs that would be incurred, including undermining our ability to influence the policies of the State in question and writing off investments made over years in the bilateral relationships with the countries in question. At a time when Ireland needs as much international support and co-operation as possible, it is important to get these decisions right.

The Minister of State and, I am sure, the Tánaiste will know Ireland has always placed considerable emphasis on pursuing its human rights agenda in other countries and at home. The Minister of State will acknowledge the Vatican was a great ally in that regard. Freedom of speech, assembly and religion, and measures against intolerance and discrimination, are all very much featured by the Vatican.

I would like us to consider the subdivision of the Villa Spada. I understand this can be done as I was there once. As there are a number of entrances, there could be a separate entrance and, perhaps, a separate wing of the building dedicated to an embassy to the Vatican. There would be no rental cost and the moneys would already have been saved owing to the rental associated with the Italian Embassy. There would be a small incremental cost attached. There is obviously a cost attached to having a non-resident ambassador. The incremental cost would be reasonable.

I would like to believe we could consider my proposal prior to the Eucharistic Congress. Many people will be attending the congress in Ireland in June. I hope the Vatican can be asked directly about co-location. It should be told that we would consider the option favourably and try to achieve agreement with it in that regard. I encourage the State to make this known. If it did, there would be a positive response from the Vatican to enable my proposal to be implemented. Many people feel very hurt over what has occurred. I would like to believe this proposal will be taken on board in the spirit in which I am making it. I hope it will lead to a resolution.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Joe Costello)

I thank the Senator for raising this matter. The decision to close Ireland's resident embassy to the Holy See, in addition to our embassy in Tehran and mission in Timor-Leste, was taken by the Government in response to budgetary pressures and on the recommendation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which sought to assess where budgetary cuts would least affect the national interest at this time of economic crisis.

In addition to the immediate financial savings, the nature of the responsibilities of the embassy to the Holy See, particularly the fact that it is not involved in consular work or trade promotion, makes it more suitable than most embassies to be covered by non-resident accreditation. Nobody pretends this is an ideal arrangement, but it is the most cost-effective in the current budgetary situation.

The total cost saving in a full year from the closure is estimated at €845,000. Some €400,000 of this will come from the closure of the resident embassy to the Holy See. An additional €445,000 in savings will come from the transfer of Ireland's embassy to Italy from its previous, rented premises to the State-owned Villa Spada.

For what I understand are historical reasons, the Holy See does not accept accreditation from a resident embassy that is also accredited to Italy. It is not acceptable for one ambassador to be accredited to both states, nor is it acceptable for embassies to the Italian Republic and the Holy See to operate from the same address. It would not be possible for the Villa Spada, as presently configured, to accommodate both embassies in different buildings with separate addresses.

The Holy See has agreed to the nomination of the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr. David Cooney, as our non-resident ambassador to the Holy See. It is expected that he will present his credentials to Pope Benedict in May. Mr. Cooney has travelled to Rome three times since his nomination for meetings with Vatican officials, and will continue to travel there regularly.

The decision to close the resident embassy to the Holy See will not be reversed in the immediate term. The unavoidable budgetary cuts and the reduction in staff numbers that necessitated the closure are still in effect and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has neither the staff nor the financial resources to reverse the mission closures decided upon by the Government last November. However, as the economic circumstances improve, and in the context of the regular review of our diplomatic network, it may be possible to revisit the matter at some time in the future. If the Vatican is prepared to relax its current requirements so as to allow the State-owned Villa Spada to serve as a location for our embassies to both Italy and the Holy See, that can be taken into account in any future considerations.

Senator Jim Walsh

I have two points. I welcome the last sentence of the Minister of State's response. This issue was brought to the attention of the Tánaiste's predecessor, Deputy Micheál Martin, when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs and he rejected the concept of closure. The overall budget for the Department is €150 million. The saving was quite small, therefore. If the Department considers financial and staffing resources, it should be possible for it to do as I propose if there is a relaxation of the Vatican's current requirements.

I urge the Minister of State to encourage the Tánaiste to initiate discussions with the Holy See with a view to resolving this matter. There are many doors in the Villa Spada and, therefore, my proposal could work. I am aware the Holy See would seek a separate address from that of the Italian embassy but that could obviously be done quite easily by using a separate entrance, subdividing the building and retaining the small staff that was in place. I urge the Minister of State to determine whether this issue can be resolved. It will not go away. It has caused angst among many people and the campaign will only grow.

Deputy Joe Costello

I will certainly take on board what the Senator said. I will inform the Tánaiste of his views on the last paragraph of my response. I will certainly clarify the matter for the Senator.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 February 2012.