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

No, it was not, but from small things important ones often grow. We built up the campaign against that horrific proposal.

Subsequently, there was another proposal for a ten-storey apartment block. In Dún Laoghaire, just east of the east pier, the entire area from Teddys ice cream to the east pier would now be blocked out from the main road if that proposal had gone forward. At the time, however, we mobilised thousands of people in a huge series of demonstrations, culminating in a massive demonstration on Scotsman's Bay. Christy Moore played at that. We had many other artists and other people up from the Shell to Sea campaign, another sea-related campaign at the time, to speak. That mass movement of people power forced the abandonment of the proposal. That was a huge victory for people power. At the time, the central argument we had to take on was that there had to be public-private partnership. In other words, in the development of the harbour, the sea and the seafront amenities, private capital had to be in there somewhere. The trade-off for getting anything on the seafront would be that some private interest had to make money; therefore, we had to have an apartment block or an office block in order to get a swimming pool or some sort of amenity. We rejected that because we knew that once we accepted that principle, we were effectively privatising the seafront and what we would get would benefit private investors and very wealthy people and would not protect the amenity as a public amenity for all. That is the critical point about Dublin Bay. It has to be an amenity for all. The seafront is an amenity for all. It should never be the province of an exclusive group of people or people who are simply trying to exploit it for money.

It is incredible that we are now 16 or 17 years on and finally, next week, the Dún Laoghaire baths for which we campaigned and got agreement in principle will reopen as a public amenity without apartment blocks or office blocks but, shockingly, still without the pool we campaigned for. They have left a space for it, but there is still no pool. There will be a swimming jetty, and that it is great, and it is far better than privatisation, but it is extraordinary that after all those years we still will not have the swimming pool. Again, I remember at the time when we argued against those mad proposals and said we should have a public seawater swimming amenity, we were told that seawater swimming was completely out of date and that people would swim only in heated pools. That was one of the main objections at the time. How wrong can you be? Seawater swimming has now exploded and is a massive interest. We are nearly there but we still want our pool. The point is that the belief that we had to somehow exploit the seafront for money was what threatened it as a public amenity.

That brings me on to a few other issues. We all know we need offshore industrial wind to have alternative sources of electricity, but it is completely wrong that private, for-profit developers have selected the sites for the development of that rather than a democratic planning process or something like a Dublin Bay authority. The private developers have selected the Kish Bank, a very sensitive area adjoining a UNESCO biosphere, which could very seriously and detrimentally affect Dublin Bay as an amenity from all sorts of points of view.

That should be done in a democratic, planned and environmentally sustainable way. It should not be private developers dictating where wind farms go. I wish to flag that as still being a very important issue for the people of Dún Laoghaire and I suspect all of Dublin Bay.

Dún Laoghaire harbour is another precious resource. Save Our Seafront campaigned for many years for the dissolution of the essentially commercially orientated harbour company and for the harbour to be brought under democratic control, which we eventually succeeded in doing. Recently the old Stena Line terminal building was essentially handed over in the face of our opposition to a private company that wanted to develop a digital hub in the building. We opposed this because we believe it should be developed as a public amenity. We were told in June that the digital hub that was going to be developed by this private company was "shovel-ready" as soon as it was handed over. Not a thing has happened to that terminal building. I have it on reasonable rumour that this private entity is going to collapse and we will be left with a terminal building sitting in the middle of the harbour that should be used to develop a national water sports centre, greater access to the sea and access to that wonderful amenity that is the harbour and the bay.

I want to address the issue of water quality. I thank Melisa Halpin for putting forward motions looking for more testing of water quality about two years ago. The Minister has alluded to key issues in that regard. When it rains, foul water mixes with rain water and sewage goes into the sea on a regular basis because we have not invested in the rehabilitation of a Victorian pipe network in the area. That investment needs to happen. Even when it is upgraded, the sewage treatment plant will not be enough to deal with the capacity that is necessary to ensure the water quality in Dublin Bay and so measures need to be taken urgently in that regard.

See this speech in context