Vol. 263 No. 2
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if, in connection with an application made to him by the Dublin Port and Docks Board for a licence to establish an oil refinery or depot, he will hold a public inquiry into every aspect of the proposal in view of the possible repercussions of such a development; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
74.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if any Government decision has been made concerning the siting of a refinery in Dublin Bay.
75.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will confirm that no harbour development other than that intended to increase the essential scope of Dublin Port will be entertained until the debate on the recent harbour board development plans is concluded.
76.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether the Government have prepared alternative job-opportunity contingency plans to cover the possibility that the proposed new jobs and houses to be made available under the industrial estate expansion plans recently published by the Dublin Port and Docks Board are not proceeded with.
77.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether any public inquiry will be held into plans respecting large scale alterations of Dublin Port; whether his Department have examined the present study produced by Dublin Port and Docks Board; and, if so, with what result.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 73 to 77, inclusive, together.
The studies on the long-term development of Dublin Bay published by the Dublin Port and Docks Board are intended to provide an informed basis for examination and discussion about future development of the port. The board have indicated that they would welcome the views of the public and interested parties on studies and that such views would be taken into consideration before they would decide on any formal plan or plans which would be appropriate for submission to the planning authorities. In these circumstances, the question of job opportunity contingency plans does not arise at this stage. I would point out, in any event, that general responsibility for the promotion of industrial job opportunities rests with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Pending the emergence of a development plan it would be open to the Dublin Port and Docks Board to seek permission to provide facilities for specific projects that may arise in the short term and any such request would fall to be considered under the provision of planning and harbours legislation. In this connection, the board have applied to me for a harbour works order to authorise the building of embankments and reclamation, necessary for a proposed oil refinery. I understand that the promoters of the refinery have sought planning permission in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Any question of an inquiry would fall to be determined under the provisions of that Act. No action on the making of a harbour works order will be taken until after a decision has been taken on the planning application in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Would the Minister agree on the desirability of full examination of any proposals of the kind referred to or desired under the harbour works order in Dublin Port? Does the Minister agree that a full examination is desirable so that an idea would be available to all of us of what jobs would be available, possible pollution hazards and whether resiting elsewhere would be advisable? Would the Minister agree that there should be full examination of all these matters?
This examination is now proceeding. There will be the fullest possible examination under the planning legislation.
At any stage will this be held in public?
There is the right of any objector to insist on the inquiry on foot of the application being heard in public. That provision already exists under the planning legislation.
Does the Minister agree that there was some Government statement on this subject of the oil refinery after a Government meeting some time ago, and could he indicate the terms of that statement which is curiously omitted from his reply?
The terms of the statement were quite clearly that the Government did not, as the facts were presented to them at that stage, view this proposal with any great favour but the terms of the statement did not preclude the right of any individual, firm or group of people from proceeding for planning permission under the planning legislation enacted by the Oireachtas.
If the Government statement meant what it appeared to mean and was interpreted as meaning and was intended to be interpreted as meaning, would it not be fairer to all concerned to tell the people that they are wasting their time? Or, was it that the Government's statement did not, in fact, mean what it appeared to mean and that the omission of any reference to it here indicates back-tracking by the Government and that this is something which the Government are prepared to consider? Let us be clear what the Government's attitude is.
It is very sad to hear Deputy FitzGerald seeking in any way to breach by illegal attitudes legislation which is already existing and under which procedures, both judicial and quasi-judicial, have been established to hear applications which it is the right of every person or group to make. This is basic to the whole institution of Parliament and the institutions it has established.
I did nothing of the kind.
Are we to understand that in fact this matter was never discussed at Cabinet level? My recollection is that quite recently such information was relayed in our newspapers and I do not recall any Government denial that such was the case. Is the Minister now saying that this was not discussed at Cabinet level and that the interpretation which the public have of the Government's attitude is not correct? We are simply seeking information on the Government's attitude.
I shall repeat that the Government's attitude is that on the facts as before us we do not view this proposal with favour. This does not in any way deprive people of the right to proceed under legislation enacted by this Oireachtas to whatever determination of their rights they seek under institutions established by an Act of this House.
Would the Minister say if the Government's statement means anything or means nothing? If it means something could he tell us what it is?
The Deputy will appreciate that this House, not the Government, has established institutions under an Act passed by the House—and many other Acts—and that people have a right to proceed to the determination of whatever they have in mind——
I did not make the statement; the Government did. Either that statement means something and may or may not be in defiance of planning legislation—I do not know—or it means nothing. I am asking the Minister what does the Government's statement mean, if anything.
I am going to repeat for the third time for the benefit of the Deputy's obtuse mind——
Would the Minister answer the question put to him?
——that the Government, on the facts before them, viewed with disfavour the adoption of the proposed oil refinery proposal reported in the newspapers. That has nothing to do with the determination on the part of any people to proceed with the full examination of whatever proposals they may have, to outline these fully and make their case fully before the appropriate institutions. That is entirely a separate matter. It is their decision and not a Government decision.
Either the Government statement means that the Government will or will not permit this to proceed. I ask which.
Have the Government a favourable view and has this been communicated to the Port and Docks Board or to the people who made application for an oil refinery?
That view has been made known and it is now a question of fully examining the proposal.
To the parties concerned?
The Deputy should be aware of a distinction in what I am saying. As the proposal appeared at that stage, that was the view expressed by the Government. The people concerned with this proposal have proceeded by way of their legal rights to seek a harbour board order and to seek planning permission. They obviously hope on foot of this, by way of their presentation of the case, to succeed. That is their business. That is their decision. It would be completely wrong for the Government in those circumstances to anticipate the result of the planning tribunal in any way and it would be totally at variance with the legislation passed by this House.
You did convey your view——
I am calling Question No. 78.
On Question No. 71, which has not been discussed, will the Minister say whether there will or will not be an inquiry?
I am not going to answer Deputy FitzGerald.
The Minister took five questions together and he replied to them together. We cannot go over every individual question again.
He did not answer No. 71. If he had answered it, I would agree, but he did not, of course.
I am calling Question No. 78.
I meant Question No. 77.
