Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As a member of the Select Sub-Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport, I want to speak about the Report Stage amendment that Deputy Boyd Barrett has tabled. The amendment cuts to the core of future development policy of the port infrastructure network throughout the country.

During the tenure of the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and that of his predecessor, we spent much time over a number of months in pre-legislative hearings engaging with stakeholders, port companies, port users and those who work in the ports. The amendment before the House is related to the Schedule to the Bill, which is symbolic of the entire ports policy. No two ports in the country are the same. For the first time, the Government, through the interaction with the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, has decided that the ports around the coastline should be categorised on the basis of the amount of commercial work and activity undertaken in them. Rather than have the current legal situation where every port is essentially regarded as the same, some degree of rationalisation and categorisation is required in terms of the strategic, local and regional importance of the ports. We spent much time in the committee sifting through the options.

There was a bit of argy-bargy between representatives of the mid-west and of parts of the west who believed that the Shannon Foynes Port Company and the Galway Port Company, which is also mentioned in the Schedule to which Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett’s amendment refers, are the same. However, that is not the case because the Galway Port Company accounts for 1% of the total national tonnage and the Shannon Foynes Port Company accounts for 20% of the total national tonnage or about 10 million tonnes of bulk cargo per year. The latter port is able to berth ships of more than 200 m with a draught of 10.5 m, in other words, huge ships. Up to now we had a situation whereby ports with a totally different business case were treated the same.

I raised in the committee the fact that a substantial part of the revenue in Galway Port was derived from the car park and another substantial part was derived from rental income. That is fine. I have no difficulty with that, but it is at total variance with the business model in the Shannon Foynes Port. I am sure it is also at variance with the business model in Dún Laoghaire Harbour. After much deliberation with the Minister and his predecessor, it is on that basis the decision was made by the committee that some type of categorisation was required. If a port has a local impact then who better than the local authority and its members, with local knowledge, to develop the port in the future? On the flip side, if one has a port of strategic national importance in terms of tonnage such as Dublin Port, Cork Port and Shannon Foynes Port, it is very clear that their role is critical to the overall economic development of not only the local area or region but of the State as a whole. I do not know whether it is intentional or otherwise, but if Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett’s amendment were accepted it would unravel the entire ports policy. That is the kernel of the matter.

I understand the concern that has been expressed about the changes in governance in some of the local ports. Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor has enunciated this very well. However, we have discussed a similar approach in terms of other elements of the public service as well. It has been a difficult issue, for example, in terms of the health service where promises were made that services would be available at every four crossroads, to the detriment of people whereby their health was put at risk. No more than one cannot have a cancer service at every four crossroads, one cannot have a national port in every harbour. That is just not possible. We do not have the resources or the tonnage, let alone the infrastructure. We must ensure that when we invest in the infrastructure in terms of connecting ports such as Dún Laoghaire Harbour, Drogheda Port, Sligo Port and the other ports to which reference is made in the Schedule, that we do so in a strategic way that is of benefit to the economy.

This morning on Leaders’ Questions a swipe was taken at my port by the leader of the day of Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett’s group, namely, Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice, who said it was an absolute scandal that trans-European transport network, TEN-T, funding was being allocated to the Shannon Foynes Port Company to infill a jetty and carry out works in the port, which conveys in excess of 10 million tonnes of bulk cargo in and out of the State on a yearly basis. I do not know what planet Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice inhabits, but I object in principle to anything that would in any way inflict damage on the potential to invest in a port on the west coast. Shannon Foynes Port is not on the Irish Sea. It is not in Cork or Waterford; it is very much part of the west coast. Shannon Foynes Port is in the Shannon Estuary and it bounds counties Clare, Limerick and Kerry. One cannot get much more westerly than that. Any commentary from the Opposition benches through amendments to the Bill or ill-informed, politically charged, ignorant commentary, such as I heard this morning on Leaders’ Questions, does nothing to advance the case of smaller ports such as Galway Port, Dún Laoghaire Harbour, Sligo Port, Drogheda Port or anywhere else. One is comparing apples with oranges.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett’s amendment flies in the face of everything we heard from stakeholders, business groups, those who bring in the ships, unload the ships, or use the port network. All of those people told us about the constraints that exist currently, the associated difficulties, and the need to have a much more streamlined ports infrastructure. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett is correct. To be honest, when one sees some of the costs incurred in certain smaller ports, one must ask oneself how in the name of God one could have a situation where a port, for instance, conveying less than 1% of the national tonnage could pay people salaries in excess of the chief executive officers of the local authority in the area. That is bizarre. I hope that following the introduction of the Bill there will be rationalisation in terms of such positions and an examination through the Committee of Public Accounts or this House of the inflated costs we see in some of the companies that up to now were stand-alone entities. People were essentially running their own little fiefdoms and now they will be answerable to local authority members. That is a good thing, in the same way as the Shannon Foynes Port Company and all of the other ports listed in the Schedule will have to answer to the Minister, as the shareholder, and his or her Accounting Officer, the Secretary General, in turn will have to answer to the Committee of Public Accounts. What is wrong with a small port carrying small tonnage and small volumes of people being answerable to the local people who might know the port better than those who are in charge at the moment?

That is the kernel of the policy and it is the policy that drove the design of the Bill. The Bill did not come out of the back drawer of a cabinet in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport; a great deal of work went into it from people who have a genuine interest in the issue. In my part of the country we have the deepest port in the country. It is probably one of the most important pieces of national infrastructure which has been long since strangled by the N69. I am delighted that road has been included on the Government’s capital programme to allow exactly what is specified in the Bill, namely, joined-up infrastructure between the ports and the road and rail networks. That is what we need, namely, a small number of critical pieces of infrastructure in key locations that will be able to deliver key economic drivers to the State as a whole.

I ask Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, through the Chair, to ask Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice to reflect on the attack he made today on the Shannon Foynes Port Company and the investment that has been secured by it through the European Union. It has not gone down well in the mid-west region-----

See this speech in context