Seanad debates
Thursday, 1 March 2007
Port Development
1:00 am
Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister of State to the House to take this matter relating to Dublin Port and Dublin Bay. I may have tabled this matter previously asking for discussions in the Seanad.
Only last week, I visited Dublin Port as a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport at the request of its management, following on from a presentation to our committee on 29 November. To my amazement, Dublin Port is still insisting on and, more importantly, expecting that the Government will make a decision on granting a licence to fill in a further 52 acres of Dublin Bay, thereby increasing the overall area of Dublin Port.
Any layman could visit Dublin Port, look at the figures shown to us on the growth in ro-ro and lo-lo operations at Dublin Port over the past ten years and consider how this is expected to grow continuously in the coming years. A simple question cannot be answered, however. With all the unitised trade coming into Dublin, is it really expected the extra traffic will be churned out to the M50, even when that road is upgraded?
More importantly, the port is seeking 52 acres of infill because it wants deeper berthing facilities. Deeper berthing ships will have Magnum containers, a large type of container which cannot fit through the tunnel. On one side we have a constraint at the end of the port as the M50 and our national road network cannot take those trucks. Looking at the increase in trade expected in this economy over the next number of years, I do not believe it is feasible for us to bring such trucks on to the M50 on a regular basis.
There is an alternative based on European and worldwide best practice. We should now take the decision to relocate the industrial port activity from Dublin Port. If this is not done, it is likely a new port will be developed in any event at Bremore called Bremore Ireland Port, which will be made possible by Drogheda Port relocating to north County Dublin. If that occurs, the market will dictate there will be another smaller port north of Dublin. At the same time Dublin Port will increase its capacity.
It would be better if a Department strategy was devised to deal with the issue. When the committee left Dublin Port last week, the authorities asked that we bring closure to the issue of whether they will get the 52 acres for infill in Dublin Bay. As we know, the authorities have been asking for this for 30 years, with the matter being hopped back and forth from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to Dublin City Council. There is a question of whether planning permission or a foreshore licence is required first.
The ports are now under the remit of the Department of Transport and it is time the Department developed a strategy to deal with our imports and exports. There is a requirement that this be brought to a conclusion. We may allow capacity to be continually increased, although the chief executive has stated that even if the increase were allowed, the port would again reach capacity in 20 years. Is a 20-year horizon good planning, and what will be done at the end of that period in any event?
For the sake of the life of Dublin city, there should be a decision taken that Dublin Port will not be allowed to fill in a further 52 acres. Where does the Department stand on the issue?
2:00 am
Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Gabhaim buÃochas leis an Seanadóir as ucht deis a thabhairt dom an cheist thábhachtach seo faoi Bhaile Ãtha Cliath agus an tÃr go hiomlán a fhreagairt.
Senator Morrissey will be aware that Dublin Port Company is a State-owned company established under the 1996 Harbours Act. The Act provides that the company is required to take all proper measures for the management, control, operation and development of its harbour. As part of this mandate, the future development of Dublin Port is primarily a matter for the company and its board.
Dublin Port is the country's premier port in terms of throughput and turnover and, as such, is of vital strategic importance to our trading economy. We are victims of our own success as we would not be having a debate on providing additional capacity but for the policies implemented by this Government and the previous Government going back to 1997, with economic growth of almost 5% each year over all those years. All of us are delighted to have this debate and have this difficulty rather than problem. The port is important as it handles approximately half the State's seaborne trade, including 76% of the ro-ro trade and 59% of the lo-lo trade.
When I was in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and before the Department of Transport took over the relevant responsibilities, I published the ports policy statement in January 2005. That aimed to better equip the port sector and its stakeholders to meet national and regional capacity and service needs. It recognised that one of the key challenges was the provision of adequate in-time port capacity, especially for unitised trade. I would be the first to recognise the importance of planning in advance because it takes some years of a lead-in to provide additional capacity and cater for the going trade and economic growth.
Last October, my Department published the broad conclusions of a study commissioned to determine whether national port capacity requirements for unitised trade could be met adequately by a combination of projects being planned and progressed by the ports sector. As part of this study, submissions were received from the seven ports around the country with expansion plans, including the Dublin Port Company, which outlined proposals to increase capacity at some of its existing container terminals and to build new terminals as part of its intention to reclaim 21 hectares of foreshore. This proposal would require planning permission and permission under the Foreshore Acts. When I was a Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, I authorised the necessary letter to the Dublin Port Company to allow it to prepare for planning.
Given the scale of investment required by such a development, my Department would expect to receive a detailed business case, which would be necessary despite the fact that the ports have a statutory basis. When investments are requested, the Department has the responsibility to know the details.
The national spatial strategy identifies the strategic merit in relieving the pressures on Dublin Port, of which I am well aware, through targeted interventions in building up port capacity elsewhere. The recent capacity study concluded that all the projects presented to us are generally consistent with the objectives of the strategy. The projects are located in or close to the five main gateway towns and six of the seven are outside Dublin city.
I understand that Dublin City Council has engaged consultants to carry out a wide-ranging economic, amenity-recreational and environmental study of Dublin Bay, including the port area, to identify a guiding framework for its future overall development. Currently, the consultants are carrying out a stakeholder consultation, to which the Department of Transport is contributing.
I wish to draw the attention of the House and Senator Morrissey in particular to the recently published National Development Plan 2007-2013, which proposes a comprehensive study of the role of Dublin Port, taking account of locational considerations, in the context of overall ports policy in Ireland, wider transport policy, urban development policy, the national spatial strategy and national economic policy. It refers to the difficulties that could arise in the form of containers that are unable to pass through the tunnel, but it also recognises that the maximum height limit is 4.6 m and that there is a wash-out period for taller containers.
These factors must be taken into consideration before a final decision can be taken. The review will take full account of the findings of the study being carried out by the city council. I am sure that Senator Morrissey and his colleagues on the Joint Committee on Transport will desire to make an input and that they will have an opportunity to do so.