Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“ “Stakeholder and Community Group” means a group comprising elected representatives of all bona fide harbour user groups as well as resident and community groups across the local authority area;”.

I thank Deputy Fleming for tabling these amendments for me. This series of amendments goes to the heart of all the amendments I have proposed. There are 28 or 30 in total and they relate to who we will listen to when it comes to developing and managing our harbours and what their priorities are. I cannot speak about other harbours and I do not intend to do so. That is up to people from those areas and the various stakeholders in other harbours, such as Drogheda, and that is how it should be. From my experience in Dún Laoghaire, there is a big problem. Since I was elected, I have flagged it extensively with the Minister and his predecessor. People believe the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company is a law unto itself and that they have no real input into what goes on there, what plans are developed and what the priorities of the harbour should be.

That has led to great controversy and great conflict, which we have seen manifest itself in the oral hearing that has been taking place for the past four weeks. The oral hearing has been very polarised. It is not my spin; it is a fact that the two sides in the conflict consist of almost every group representing the community, harbour users and the public pitted against the harbour company. It is not just about this development but it is important to say that the development, which is at the centre of the oral hearing, is part of the master plan that was developed. It is a very extensive plan produced by the harbour company in 2011. It sets out a number of plans for the harbour that include private apartments, a floating barge and swimming pool, and parts of the harbour have been put up for sale recently in connection with the master plan. The public did not ask for that. A total of 130 submissions have been made by groups and individuals. The overwhelming majority of them oppose, root and branch, what the harbour company is doing. In a previous non-statutory, so-called public consultation in 2011 on the development of the plan, almost all of the submissions at the time were to the effect that people did not like the plan or key elements of it. The plan was not changed or amended and the harbour company just charged ahead. That gets to the heart of the problem, namely, to whom are those people accountable.

I also raised serious governance issues to do with what I consider to be excessive executive salaries, bonuses, payments for cars, expenses that should not have been paid out and cases where we are not sure if expenses have been paid back. The list just goes on and on. Huge amounts of money have been wasted on various plans that did not come to fruition, such as the plan for the Carlisle Pier. The list literally goes on.

Even by the harbour company’s own admission, it is in a difficult financial position. It has reached a crunch point in terms of what will happen, following the removal of the Stena Line service. When we are at such a crunch point, the question is who will make the decision. The amendment seeks to include a stakeholder and community group as a key pillar in the decision-making process about what should happen in the harbour now and in the future. It tries to radically shift the balance away from an unaccountable executive in a quango that is at arm’s length from everybody and from any accountability to one where the general public has a say. The public is the biggest stakeholder. There is some reference to sailing clubs, boat clubs and other groups but arguably the biggest stakeholder in any harbour, let alone Dún Laoghaire, is the public. Every year, 1 million people walk the piers. More again look at the harbour vistas and enjoy the views and there are thousands of others, including fishermen, people who sell fish, fix boats, travellers and rowing clubs, who use the harbour but none has any input. The reason the oral hearing has been going on for four weeks is because this is the first time their voice has been heard. This is pretty much the first time ever that all of the stakeholders have been in one room and had their voices heard. What everybody was asking is why they were not listened to years ago. They also questioned whether they would be listened to now.

Notwithstanding the conflict and dispute about the particular cruise berth proposal, the one thing that struck me forcibly, having attended the oral hearing in recent weeks, was why all those people were not in a room five or six years ago. A group was set up in 2009 and it is very telling in terms of the purpose of what I am trying to do. It was called the cruise ship stakeholders group. Who appointed this group? It was appointed by the CEO, Owen Keegan. A letter went to the chamber of commerce and it had a nominee. Subsequently, it became a business improvement district, BID. There was also the CEO of the harbour company. I described this as a cabal and I do not think it is an unreasonable description. The CEO hand-picked somebody from the chamber of commerce, in consultation with the CEO of the harbour board. That is the stakeholder. Those people then went on to spend €1.2 million on various activities in the harbour, much of which was related to the cruise berth plan and the master plan and they were accountable to nobody.

The first time the elected council became fully aware of all of that was in 2013, four years after the stakeholders group was set up. The genuine stakeholders of the community and the public did not get an input until 2015 – six years after the group was set up and after €1.2 million was spent. I do not think that is acceptable. I appeal to the Minister in that regard. I genuinely believe I am representing the vast majority of opinion among the stakeholders and the public in Dún Laoghaire when I say that people want the situation to change radically.

I wish to clarify something the Minister said, so that what I propose is absolutely clear. I am not proposing that we usurp the power of the elected councillors in favour of this group. What I am saying, and what is stated consistently in the amendments, is that wherever there are references to the CEO having the authority, that it should be vested precisely in the elected members who are accountable but that also those elected members will be required to consult with a stakeholders' group. That seems to me to be very reasonable. The decision on the future development, operations, management, priorities and so on of the harbour will be in the hands of elected members but they will be required to consult with a genuine, bona fide community and stakeholders group made up of all the user groups and representatives of the public and residents groups. That seems to be an eminently reasonable proposal and it is also in the interests of sustainable development, planning and management of the harbour and seafront, which I remind the Minister is the most precious asset in the county. It is arguably a national treasure. I appeal to the Minister to take on board what we are saying and to accept this series of amendments in the interests of democratic planning, oversight and management of a precious public amenity for the region and, arguably, for the country.