Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister's contribution has been the most extraordinary twisting of what I said that I have heard in a long time. It shows the arrogance that the Minister has built up during his period. What I said in relation to the status of Galway Port was that to build it based on what it was in the past, when it was physically constrained by the harbour, would be to retain the status quo. I did not say the whole Bill retained the status quo. I repeat that making decisions on the future by using past performance as a major criterion is to preserve the past rather than to see the possibilities of the future.

The second point I want to correct is simply this. I stated that the Government has generally had a policy of centralisation into Dublin, which, in my view, as a Dubliner, is not to the benefit of this city. It is certainly not to the benefit of the country and it is not to the benefit of anybody living on the island of Ireland. One ends up with the farcical situation of overcrowded schools, health facilities and community facilities and no available houses in one part of the country, and schools screaming out and begging for pupils, health centres that could take twice the number of attendees, and community facilities and sports clubs that are begging for players in the other part. It is totally wasteful economics. I did not say that I wanted to hold back the development of the port of Dublin, and the Minister will not find that anywhere in my contribution if he reads the transcript. Let us be absolutely clear about that. Let us try not to play the usual game of the east coast versus west coast. As somebody who has a major stake in both coasts, I have always believed passionately that by developing the whole country at an equal pace and not dislocating people unnecessarily from one side of the country to the other, we would build a better quality of life for our people, because dislocating people and communities is most destructive. We could agree to differ on that, but I do not want my words twisted.

The Minister intimated, if I understand him correctly, that his understanding is that Galway City Council is favourably disposed to a change in the status of the company from a port company to a company under either the CEO or the local authority. If we organise for a resolution to be passed by Galway City Council stating that it unequivocally wants this deleted from the Bill and if we get a similar resolution passed by the port company between now and Report Stage, will the Minister be willing to withdraw the reference in the Schedule to Galway Port on the basis that the people of Galway do not want this? My understanding is that neither the city council nor the port company, whose representatives contacted their local Deputies about the matter, as the Chairman will be aware, is in favour of what is in this Bill.

I am glad about the clarification on the TEN-T funding. The Minister has now said it is only one of the criteria taken into account. I am sure, therefore, that when a person is making a case for a port, the Minister will be able to go in and say that what constrained the development of Galway Port in the past was not just the lack of growth in the region, although, thankfully, Galway is now growing very fast. It was a lack of business, if one likes, but primarily the thing that constrained the growth of Galway Port was the geography of the port, which the harbour company overcame. If one could put a strong business case, as the port company has, that if the physical constraint of the port was overcome it would be one of the fastest growing ports in the country, no doubt the custodians of the TEN-T funding criteria would say that if there is a will in the Department to promote the case it would pose no problem, and the funding would be granted. The case is made and it is a very good explanation as to why the past and the future will be totally different.

One of the great aspects of Galway Port is that if one had the facility we are looking for there, it would be the only major city port, as far as I know, from which one could walk to the city centre in less than ten minutes. One certainly cannot walk from Alexandra Basin to O'Connell Street in ten minutes, one cannot walk from where the ships berth in Cobh to Cork city centre in ten minutes, one cannot walk from Foynes to Limerick in ten minutes, and my understanding is that cruise liner passengers would not be able to walk from Belview to Waterford city in ten minutes. In Galway, one would literally be landing in the heart of the city.

In addition, cruise liners want to visit interesting places. Of course, a lot of tourists want to visit Dublin, but it is also well recognised by the cruise companies that they have a particular interest in visiting the west of Ireland, including the heart of a medieval city and the beautiful countryside that includes such iconic tourism features as the Aran Island, the Cliffs of Moher and Connemara, as well as the city itself. It is a no-brainer that if one develops the port, the cruise ships will come. Cruise ship sailing is a relatively recent phenomenon with the massive growth that has taken place, and, therefore, to a certain extent, the past is irrelevant because it is only the recent past.

I am glad to hear we are not excluded from this TEN-T funding and that it is merely a question of making the case. Could the Minister confirm, first, whether he will withdraw the provision in the Bill if Galway City Council and Galway Harbour Company pass resolutions between now and Report Stage requesting that this not be done? Second, can he confirm that the designation as a tier 2 port is a matter for the national, not the European, authorities? Third, will he confirm that past performance is only one criterion for TEN-T funding and, as a criterion rather than an overriding prohibition, it could be overcome by explaining why the future will be different from the past?