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

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:“(3) This section shall not apply to Dun Laoghaire Harbour.”.

This amendment follows on from our earlier discussion. As set out by the Minister, the Bill has two options for these harbours. This amendment seeks that there would be just one option for Dún Laoghaire. The first of the two options is for the company to be a corporate subsidiary of the local authority with the existing board and company, in some shape or form, remaining in situ. The second option is to dissolve the company and for the harbour to become an integrated part of the local authority. We strongly favour the second option for Dún Laoghaire and do not believe the corporate subsidiary model is appropriate. I do not wish to speak for other ports, but in the specific case of Dún Laoghaire, we do not think it is appropriate. When I say "we", I think every manifestation of public interest in this issue shares the view and there are a number of reasons for the position.

The Government's national ports policy indicates that the traditional operations and priorities of Dún Laoghaire are changing and that it needs to move more in the recreational direction. It still is a working harbour and I would like to see it remain a working harbour. I want to make that clear. It was a tragedy that the Stena Line ferry service went. However, this illustrates why the harbour should be an integrated part of the council rather than a corporate subsidiary. We do not know what happened. I do not know this for sure and I am not sure we will ever know if it remains a corporate subsidiary, but I have heard that Stena Line was willing to stay but wanted to pay less in annual berthing fees and the harbour company would not agree to the proposal. I do not know if that is true but that is what I have heard from a reasonably reliable source. I would at the very least like to know if that is true and I think the public would like to know too. I think they would like to know exactly what happened in those negotiations and whether we should have taken a different stance which might have resulted in Stena Line staying.

More generally, the corporate subsidiary model is one which will push the harbour in the direction of privatisation. The evidence is there. The harbour master plan proposes a hotel and hundreds of apartments within the precincts of Dún Laoghaire harbour. I invite the Minister to look at the master plan if he has not already seen it. In connection with the harbour plan, a piece of land has already been put up for sale. This is land in a public harbour. The privatisation process is under way.

This is what is driving matters such as the cruise berth proposal, under which €18 million was to be borrowed using the assets of the harbour as collateral. Any serious economist examining this issue would be of the view that the cost of building infrastructure such as a cruise berth would be much greater than €18 million. For example, the HSS terminal cost €22 million and this proposed cruise berth is much bigger than that. We do not know how they came up with a figure of €18 million because they did not provide any substantial answer on the projected cost of the cruise berth to the harbour company.

A connected issue - this has been confirmed by the manager of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council - is what is described as the development of a hotel and apartments. In fact, St. Michael's pier, as set out in the Dún Laoghaire harbour company's master plan, is the financial driver of the cruise berth. In other words, if we get the cruise berth, we will get a hotel and hundreds of apartments. This will make a central part of the harbour that is now public, private and will fundamentally change the character of the harbour. Why is the harbour company doing this? It is doing it because it is driven by the requirement or mandate to be a profitable entity, which pushes it in that direction. We say that is not the direction it should be pushed.

If we are going to revitalise Dún Laoghaire town, what we need is a view of the harbour that sees it as part of the town instead of a part at odds with and competing with the town. Currently, there are 85 empty units in Dún Laoghaire town. There has been a serious decline, but the retailers and townspeople are fighting to try to save the town and are being imaginative and energetic on that. However, one of the big problems is this schism between the harbour and the town, which is institutionalised in the model of the corporate subsidiary, a quango currently under the Department but, a little like the Cherrywood development, soon to be moved to the council while remaining a corporate subsidiary. The council's share of Cherrywood is a corporate subsidiary and the elected councillors do not have a clue what is going on there. The managers know what is happening but the elected representatives, although it is formally under their remit, have not got a clue what is going on in Cherrywood. For that reason, we say this corporate subsidiary model is not appropriate to Dún Laoghaire.

Critically, if we take the second option and if that is the only option allowed for Dún Laoghaire, it could unleash positive forces not just for the harbour but also for the entire town. It would at last allow a holistic approach to developing Dún Laoghaire in a way whereby the town, harbour and seafront will mutually complement each other and be seen as an integrated whole. That is the spirit of what is being said here and I hope the Minister will take it on board. Regardless of whether he accepts this amendment, the decision will ultimately be made by him. I would like the decision to be made now, which is why the amendments are proposed. One way or another, however, the Minister will make the decision. I urge him to say the corporate subsidiary model is not the model we want and that we want a model that will be fully under the control of the council.