Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Under both models, the council will pay. That is what the Minister proposes and the Deputy should ask him who will pay for it, not me. In either case because of what is proposed in the legislation, whatever happens in Dún Laoghaire Harbour will be paid for by the public. It is a disingenuous red herring to suggest that if People Before Profit or Save our Seafront or whichever group gets its way, the public will be on the hook for increased local property tax rates because either way, that will be the case.

The big issue is which vision for the harbour is more likely to cost the people of Dún Laoghaire or which more accurately reflects what they want. That is what we need to discuss. The plans that have been hatched for the harbour to date pose a much greater financial risk to the public than those for which the public have asked. They have asked for a diaspora museum and baths; they have not asked to have a floating barge, or for apartments and hotels or a cruise berth for giant cruise ships. The councillors have also not asked for a giant cruise berth. One of the reasons they do not want it is they believe these plans pose a significant financial risk to the public. It is estimated that €18 million is required to build the berth, which we think is an under-estimate because it is more likely to cost between €30 million and €40 million. The council and the public will cover the cost of the cruise berth under either proposal if it cannot wash its face financially. This is a serious risk and it is not one that the people want to be taken because Dublin Port, 5 km up the road, is building a cruise berth to capture the same business. Two publicly owned ports within a few kilometres of each other will compete for the same business and Dún Laoghaire is more likely to lose. The tab for the crazy gamble on this cruise berth will be picked up by the public under either model.

Our alternative is not to financially gamble or speculate with the assets of the harbour. It is too risky and very likely to backfire on us in a big way, which will cost us.

The better, more sensible and sustainable alternative is not to spend large amounts of money on madcap gambles but to give the people the things for which they ask which would cost less and pose less of a financial risk. A diaspora museum is a win-win proposal. People have asked for it and wanted one for years and it fits in with the maritime history and heritage of Dún Laoghaire. It would result in real and tangible extra footfall in people coming to a maritime museum in the area instead of people getting on buses and travelling to Glendalough. Schoolchildren and others would visit it on a regular basis and it could be a national tourist attraction that would actually bring people to Dún Laoghaire. Could we afford to have it or a national maritime and sailing school? We already have proof that Dún Laoghaire is capable of hosting international sailing events with a huge footfall and which bring huge economic benefits to the town. That has been proved. Developing and enhancing that situation would be a win-win. There would be far less risk, if any, involved with these proposals than with proposals that involve borrowing possibly tens of millions to gamble in a competition with Dublin Port for an international business that could go bang any day. The cruise berth business is on the way up, but it could go bang very easily. It is a big risk which is not worth taking and which nobody really wants to take. That is our point. Either way, it is the public who will finance and fund this. Should we gamble and speculate with the assets of a public harbour? Our answer is no.

The local authority has to make decisions about capital projects all the time. It has money for capital projects and the people of Dún Laoghaire and their elected representatives will debate what should be prioritised. There would be a lot of support for the capital projects for which the public have asked such as the baths, the diaspora museum and the national sailing centre instead of apartments, hotels and cruise berths. Where did apartments and hotels leave the economy five or six years ago? That is gambling. What we propose would not be gambling; it is about protecting, maintaining and enhancing the harbour in a sustainable way. That is actually what the people have asked for.

See this speech in context