Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | 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 harbour user groups as well as resident and community groups across the local authority area;”.

We discussed this at length on Committee Stage but I wish to take another opportunity in a more public Chamber, before the Bill passes, to summarise the concerns of the people of Dún Laoghaire, stakeholders in Dún Laoghaire Harbour and users of the harbour about its future and how this Bill will impact on it. I urge the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to respond to the concerns and aspirations of the wide variety of harbour users and stakeholders. There is a widespread public consensus about what should happen to Dún Laoghaire Harbour which, sadly, has not been shared by the people who make decisions. We have an odd situation whereby the dogs on the street and virtually everyone else shares a similar vision for what should happen in Dún Laoghaire but the plans for the development and day to day operations of the harbour are completely at odds with that. This group of amendments is seeking to reconcile that contradiction so that the development, management and maintenance of the harbour is genuinely reflective of the users and stakeholders of the harbour. The aim is to ensure that it is the public and its representatives as well as users and stakeholders who determine the future of Dún Laoghaire Harbour.

The Minister will be aware that there is a controversial proposal by Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company to develop a giant cruise berth which will effectively cut Dún Laoghaire Harbour in half. The development would involve a very significant incursion into the harbour in order to bring in giant cruise ships. The proposal has generated significant controversy but I would emphasise that the issue is not just with the cruise berth but with what comes with it. The cruise berth and cruise ships will have a significant impact on existing harbour users, including local boat clubs and sailing clubs. It will also have an impact on the harbour as a visual amenity and affect over 1 million people who walk the pier every year. The proposal could have a very significant environmental impact in terms of the dredging of the harbour, despite the fact that Dublin Bay has been designated a biosphere reserve by the UN. There are numerous potential implications, some of which are not explicitly stated in the plan itself.

The cost of this very significant plan to fundamentally change the character of the harbour is estimated by the proposers to be €18 million but I believe that this is a gross underestimate. The HSS terminal, for example, which was built over 20 years ago, cost €22 million. The idea that this giant cruise berth could cost less than that, 20 years on, stretches credibility to breaking point. The money for this proposal will be borrowed using the assets of the harbour as collateral, a very dangerous gamble with public assets which will put the future of the harbour at risk.

We also know that in order to try to finance this big gamble, the Dún Laoghaire Harbour master plan has a number of other elements, most notably plans for hundreds of private apartments and a hotel at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. This is not included in the current planning application but it is clearly stated in the Dún Laoghaire master plan that the giant cruise berth is contingent on the other elements of the master plan, in particular plans for hundreds of private apartments and a hotel on St. Michael's Pier.

That is a very dramatic intervention in regard to the harbour. I feel strongly about it, as I have no doubt the vast majority of people do, judging from the huge numbers turning out at public meetings and the huge number of submissions that have been consistently made around this application and previous applications to put high-rise apartment blocks on Carlisle Pier. At every single opportunity where members of the public have expressed their views, they have made it known they do not want large-scale private residential development at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. This is because they recognise it will fundamentally alter the character of the harbour as a public amenity and will make those parts of that harbour where the development takes place exclusive and not available to the public. It is just a simple fact. People do not want that and yet the plan being put forward by the harbour company for the cruise berth is contingent on that development.

As I mentioned to the Minister on Committee Stage, it has been confirmed by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council that these two things come together and that we do not get one without the other. The report produced in May last year by Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company states:

The proposed urban regeneration of St. Michael's Pier is set out in the harbour master plan. The harbour company contend that it will be essential to the economic viability of the harbour company into the future and it will be the financial driver of other projects identified in the master plan.

In other words, the council is telling us it was informed by the harbour company that in order to deliver the cruise berth, it has to have the apartments, the hotel and so on at St. Michael's Pier and that one is the financial driver of the other. However, this is not wanted by the people.

Although the Bill relates to more general matters, this is an example of why we need to develop plans for this harbour and every other harbour which are not dreamed up by a small cabal of unaccountable people but are developed by all of the genuine stakeholders - the people with knowledge of the harbour and the users of the harbour, who own the harbour, because it is a publicly owned harbour. I want to underline that we welcome the move to have the harbour integrated into the council and, indeed, see it as a victory for the people in the area who campaigned over many years. However, what this series of amendments is saying is that while welcoming the move, we want to make sure it is not just bringing the harbour under council control in name only. We want it to represent a shift to real public control of the harbour so that the plans that are developed for the harbour genuinely reflect the views, aspirations, wishes and needs of the public and harbour users.

As against how the Bill construes the matter, what we want is that it should not be the CEO of the county council in conjunction or in collusion - whatever way one wants to put it - with the CEO of the harbour, which is a sort of quango or corporate subsidiary, who make the decisions, as has hitherto been the case. We want elected representatives who are accountable to the people to make the key decisions about the harbour and we want them to do it in conjunction with all of the harbour users, of whom there are many, such as fishermen, boat clubs, rowing clubs, walkers, people who are concerned about the seafront as an environmental amenity and asset and those interested in the heritage and history of the harbour. For example, one of the biggest societies in Dún Laoghaire is the history society, which has hundreds of people at its meetings because there is a very rich history, much of which centres on the harbour, which has an extraordinarily rich cultural heritage. That is by no means an exhaustive list. There are all sorts of people who have a real stake, real knowledge and real expertise in regard to the harbour. We want those people to have a say in all decisions about the harbour.

I want to make it clear to the Minister, given there was some confusion during the Committee Stage debate, that in the end, it is the elected representatives who have to make the decisions because they are elected and accountable. What we are asking is that they should do so in conjunction with a stakeholders group, not just with the CEO, who is not elected. Much of this Bill gives much of the power to the CEO rather than to the elected representatives and the stakeholders group we are proposing.

I want to draw a contrast between the approach we are proposing and the approach that has been followed hitherto, which has led to the sort of plans that are so controversial and generally opposed by people in Dún Laoghaire. For example, prior to the plan I have just referred to, there was a plan to put a ten-storey apartment block on Carlisle Pier and to put a floating barge from the canals of Berlin off the East Pier. This was crazy stuff. They wanted to put a barge with a swimming pool, taken from a canal in Berlin, inside a seawater harbour. This is the sort of thing they came up, which nobody asked for. In so far as members of the public would have any opinion about it, they have expressed opposition to this sort of plan.

The amendments propose to have a real stakeholders group but in fact, there was already a stakeholders group that came up with these plans. Where did it come from? From what I can see, it was appointed by the harbour company and by the executive of the council. I thank the Minister for sending me the correspondence between his Department and the harbour company, which I just received yesterday and which I appreciate. One of the letters is from the CEO, Gerry Dunne, explaining the setting up of the stakeholder group in 2010. He simply says that "we have just set up a stakeholder group". By "we", he means that he has. This is presumably in conjunction with the county manager and included on that group is a representative of the chamber of commerce and the business improvement district. Is that representative? These are the people who have been driving the plans.

A lot of money has been spent on these plans. Hundreds of thousands of euro, and possibly up to €1 million, have been spent without any real reference to the diversity and vast array of genuine stakeholders I have mentioned, who have not had any input and who, by and large, oppose the plans that have been developed. That is not a real stakeholder group.

What I call for through these amendments is for the Minister to legislate to ensure we have a genuine stakeholders' group so that the process is open and above board. I want it to be transparent. We know who the stakeholders, the harbour users and the community groups are and I want all of them included, not just a select few dictated from the top. All of the groups should be included and all of their voices heard and they should try to reach a consensus with the elected representatives on the plans for the development, management and protection of the harbour. This is an eminently reasonable proposal that would go a long way to healing the alienation that is so widespread between the public and political, council and semi-State authorities.

This sense of alienation is quite widespread. The people feel that they are always the last to know about plans, decisions and proposals, but they should be the first to know. The people should be first to be asked and consulted. They should be included at the ground floor in developing proposals. That is what my amendments propose and I appeal to the Minister to accept what is an eminently reasonable, fair and progressive proposal for how we manage our harbour. I believe this also applies to other harbours.

See this speech in context