Deputy Wilson has 40 minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Development of Dublin Port: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to publish a detailed plan for the development of the Port of Dublin, to attract back lost business and to revitalise the undeveloped dockland area for industrial, commercial, housing and leisure activities.
I will explain the circumstances of my putting down this motion. My motion was dated 10 October and on the morning that the TDs got my motion in the post we find that the Irish Independent had a banner headline covering the terms of my motion “Government to spend £150 million on inner city development”. I am glad that the motion obviously had the effect of putting the skids under the Government and forcing the Taoiseach into the House to make the statement which he has made since then. It is also interesting from the media point of view in that there was obvious panic when my motion was received and contact was made with the editorial end of the Irish Independent and we got a banner headline in the Irish Independent on Friday, 11 October 1985, the exact date on which Members of this House received my motion. Perhaps I should be glad that that happened. I should regard it as a positive reaction from the Government. The only thing is that it was a long time coming.
The Fianna Fáil Party had an interest in this whole area and had plans for that development for some time. I would refer the House to the terms of two Bills, the Urban Development Area Bill, 1982 and the Dublin Inner City Development Authority Bill, 1982. That is an area in which Fianna Fáil have taken an interest for some time. The inter-departmental committee on Dublin inner city, 1979 reported on that and I remember from that report that there was a strong emphasis on provision being made for the area. It is paradoxical that the Taoiseach should come into the House to announce a plan for the development of the inner city when he and his party condemned a similar effort in the most trenchant terms when proposals were coming from this side of the House. Indeed, as late as 30 April 1985 the Minister for Communications talked about an infamous deal with Deputy Gregory with regard to this development. I, in my simple way, find it difficult to understand how what was an infamous deal in 1982 and was an infamous deal in the words of the Minister right up to April 1985, has suddenly become the essence of commonsense, the engine for development, a completely new ball game, a completely different point of view on the exact same policy.
I would refer also to stupid allegations that were made by members of the Dublin Port Authority and Dublin Cargo Handling Limited with regard to Fianna Fáil's plan for development. Sometimes I find that people who are involved in bodies like that and in semi-State bodies are anxious to hang their failures around the necks of the politicians. Deputy Haughey, then Taoiseach, had no intention of damaging the finances of the Dublin Port Authority nor of Dublin Cargo Handling Limited but is on record as saying that the site which would be acquired would be paid for at full market value. I am taking the opportunity of nailing one more lie that was perpetrated outside this House with regard to this. Sometimes it is an alibi for stupid decisions and failures in management. I characterise this thing as just that.
We know that the actual port of Dublin with regard to the business of a port deteriorated very much over a number of years and that Drogheda. Arklow, Rosslare, Wexford, Greenore and as far north as Carrickfergus benefited by the failure of Dublin to provide an adequate service for importers and exporters. Many of the problems have since been solved. The terms of my motion mentions the publication of a detailed plan to be followed by legislation for the development of the port of Dublin to attract back lost business and to revitalise the undeveloped dockland area for industry, commerce, housing and leisure activities. This part of it is the actual business of the port. I know the urban report was published and I will leave that area to be dealt with by some other speakers from this side of the House, and I will proceed to deal with the other areas mentioned in my motion.
What prompted me to put down the motion was the fact that we had had the commitment with regard to inner city development over the years, the fact that in 1982 two Bills had been prepared with this objective and the fact that we had developed a climate of opinion that this was necessary. An article in Industry & Commerce of October 1985 is ad rem to the matter here under discussion. Mr. Tom Cox, Director of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce in a very interesting interview advocated more or less the implementation of what has been for some time Fianna Fáil policy. He talked about the port, about the sickness that was in the port — I hope that sickness has been cured — about the recommendations of the Horgan report and about the Dublin Chamber of Commerce being set to argue with its members who had left the port to return and make an act of faith in the future. He said that he had doubts about the recommendation to sell — which I think came from the Minister — the forced sale of assets when the market was at rock bottom. Those are the words he used. I agree that that would be very false economy indeed. Of course he recommended that a short-term loan would be used as well as grants to deal with it. The interviewer put this question to him:
Many other capitals with ports have revitalised their dockland area with aplomb. How would you like to see our dockland area, now largely derelict, developed?
His reply is interesting, and I will read it:
Firstly, I would recommend every citizen of Dublin to go down to the North Wall and have a look at the Port. It is a fascinating place, though under-utilised. The surprising thing for most people who go down there is how vast the Port actually is. There are fine undeveloped spaces down there and you don't have to be a planner to see the potential for development.
As an area, within 2½ miles of O'Connell Bridge, with lots of land available and with many redundant buildings, there is abundant potential. Besides the straightforward industrial and commercial possibilities,
——I am emphasising those deliberately——
leisure activities might be well suited. Running tracks are a possibility. Speaking as a non-expert, I'd even say that you could develop a golf course down there. It's absolutely vast. It's a great asset for a capital city to have so much development potential so close to its core.
Fianna Fáil had been interested in the development of that area for some time and had been reviled, mainly by Fine Gael Members of this House, because of that commitment. Obviously, the whole commercial and industrial climate in the country was thinking along the same lines as Fianna Fáil had been thinking with regard to this development.
I will not go into the details of these two Bills, No. 12 of 1982 and No. 30 of 1982. No. 12 is called the Urban Development Areas Bill. According to the explanatory memorandum the main purpose of that Bill was to provide for the establishment of urban development commissions to secure the regeneration of designated urban areas, to designate the Custom House dock site in Dublin and the area covered by the medieval walled city of Dublin as urban development areas, to provide for the establishment of a Custom House docks development commission and to empower the Minister to designate other areas as urban development areas. I do not have to go on with that one to convince the House of the commitment of the Fianna Fáil Party, in and out of Government, to this development.
Bill No. 30 of 1982 is called the Dublin Inner City Development Authority Bill. The object of this Bill, according to the explanatory memorandum, was to provide for the establishment of the Dublin inner city development authority to coordinate and supplement the work of a variety of agencies affecting the Dublin inner city area and to provide assistance by way of grants, loans or otherwise for inner city projects.
That whole business was opposed by the senior partner in the Government who are now putting it before the House. I do not know how long it would have taken to come before the House had my motion not got down, but with almost indecent haste the media people were contacted as soon as my motion was received. The Irish Independent, ever loyal to the Government, decided to run it on the day that the TDs got returns of my motion in their post.
I want to refer the House to the Fianna Fáil policy document The Way Forward because it is relevant to this development. In particular I want to read from it a half paragraph about methods of funding development. I quote from page 42:
Where appropriate, semi-State bodies will be encouraged to undertake joint ventures with private sector enterprises or institutions.
They will be eligible for industrial grants on the same basis as private sector enterprises. The total State investment involved in projects, inclusive of both equity and industrial grants, will be subject to the same rigorous financial and commercial assessment as that envisaged above for the capital programmes of the commercial semi-State bodies themselves.
I wanted to read that into the record of the House to indicate that we were thinking of having private investment in the area as well as Government investment.
Notice that my motion is dated 10 October; The Irish Independent banner headline was on 11 October, and the Taoiseach came into the House on 23 October with his statement. This is a very rare kind of thing; it is very difficult to understand the purpose of taking it into the House in that way. I would have thought that, as far as the Dublin port and its hinterland were concerned, the Minister for Communications was the man who should have brought it in here, assisted ably, I presume, by the other Ministers for Finance, the Environment and so on, who would be involved in this area. The first point that Fianna Fáil decided on when studying this problem — it is in keeping with the policies we had in 1979 and 1982 — was that an institute should be established for the development of the port. I know it is difficult for any Government to get things going quickly and one of the inhibitions to development is the difficulty of getting planning permission, in particular in an area of the city with all kinds of ancient rights and laws applying. Fianna Fáil are of the opinion that the institute established should have planning powers. That would speed up decision making and the start of development.
The Taoiseach, as reported at column 277, volume 361 said:
A special development authority will be established to promote and control the development of the site.
I do not have to emphasise to the House that that is just a straight lift from Fianna Fáil policy. The Taoiseach went on:
We will be making available a wide range of incentives that will stimulate investment in construction.
That has the benison of the Taoiseach now and of his party but it had his malediction when a similar suggestion came from this side of the House. The Taoiseach went on to say:
Among the incentives we will be introducing for the Custom House site are:
— capital allowance on non industrial buildings;
—Section 23 type relief on new dwellings
—Double rent allowance;
—Full rates relief.
I can tell the House that Fianna Fáil are in full support of those because they are part of our policy for the area. The number one practical plank in our platform is a tax relief for development in the area. The actual format of the institute, its ownership, its sale of sites or leasing of them to private companies and so on is a complicated area and one which the Fianna Fáil Party are now studying. We envisage that the Industrial Development Authority will have a major role to play in this development in accordance with our plan. Emphasis can and should be laid on the port and its potential for exporting and that the type of industry suited to export by ship, whether by container or roll-on, would command support from the IDA.
I am aware that there are proposals that the B & I move from the port of Dublin to Dún Laoghaire for its ferries to Holyhead and Liverpool. I presume that in the plan a development of the freight business in the port of Dublin is envisaged. I think I saw a mention that Sealink would be encouraged to use the port of Dublin for freight purposes. Last week we were debating free ports and while I am not advocating a free port for Dublin I must point out that there is a considerable opportunity there for entrepot trade in the port of Dublin.
The next agency that the Fianna Fáil Party listed as one that should have an interest in the development is Dublin Corporation. Perhaps, I should have started with Dublin Corporation. In the report of the inner city development committee in 1979, and the progress report of 1981, there is a strong emphasis on having residential development in that area. I am aware, because the south quays, from the Pigeon House Road to the Sir John Rogerson Quay and City Quay is an area I know reasonably well, that there is housing which is a credit to Dublin Corporation. The purpose of building those beautiful houses, some in Clanbrassil Street and Ringsend, was to give life to that area. To paraphrase James Connolly, an inner city without its people is not of much interest to anybody. The interviewer in Industry and Commerce said to the director of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce that other cities have succeeded in bringing back life to their inner cities and Dublin Corporation should have that as a prime objective of their own activities.
The Taoiseach mentioned section 23 type relief on new dwellings. I believe it was a Fianna Fáil Minister who introduced that relief. That type of relief would mean private residential development and I would be fully supportive of that. We may be a long way from that and a good deal of infrastructural development may have to take place before that can be developed but it can be done. Private housing can be developed attractively in that area. There would have to be a good deal of development to attract people to do that but it is surprising what the section 23 carrot and tax reliefs can do to people who are anxious to develop like that.
Fianna Fáil envisage a whole spread of various types of development in the area. In our policy originally there was an educational factor. There was a decision to develop as far as I can remember, a community school in the area. The director of the chamber of commerce said that there was also a great opportunity to develop sports centres and facilities of one kind or another in the area. I am aware that offices have been built extensively in Dublin 2, out to Dublin 4 and further into the suburbs and it would be foolhardy for anybody to encourage further office development until the development that has taken place has been absorbed. Fianna Fáil are very anxious to put in place a programme for decentralisation but if there must be office development in the city the area we are talking about should be thought of primarily. There is enough office development elsewhere in areas that did not need it that much. Considerable Government muscle would be needed to encourage people to go in there because the developments I mentioned in the other areas of Dublin were developments in a kind of free market.
The question of how ownership will be dealt with legally is one which the House will have the opportunity of considering when the necessary legislation comes before us. It is necessary that the institutes be charged with the responsibility of using all the pressure points to develop the area. The capital allowance is one which was mentioned by the Taoiseach — 100 per cent capital allowance on nonindustrial buildings. This would command the support of this side of the House. In provincial Ireland county councils help out as far as industrial development is concerned by giving rates relief over a period and the Taoiseach mentioned rates relief in his speech, I do not know how much all this would cost, but as far as the development of the port area is concerned it would be money well spent, despite all the Cassandra-like prophecies which we have heard about it.
Dublin is our capital city and consequently commands and should get from all of us the respect that a capital city should get. Maurice Craig made a marvellous study of the history of architecture up to the middle of the last century. I got this book a long time ago as a present from my wife-to-be who thought that she would improve my mind, but failed. One of the chapters — the final one, I think — was entitled "Whose Dublin?" The author was worried about whether there was overall input and an overall plan along sound architectural lines for the development of the city. I am putting it to the House that for the kind of development that I am proposing what is needed is the visionary architectural input that a man like Maurice Craig might be able to give, a man with an overall vision and an overall plan. If we had that, I have no doubt that the mix of industrial development — which because of the motive power nowadays could be a clean development — of manufacturing and housing, both Dublin Corporation and private housing, of facilities for conferences and sports, as have already been mentioned, if part of a plan which I would call a visionary plan with logic, where all the parts are made to blend with the overall vision, would provide great potential for that area of Dublin city. I have the pipe dream that artists' colonies would foster the kind of interest in the area which similar artists' colonies in other cities have brought to specific areas of those cities.
When the plan came from the architect to me, when I was Minister for Education, for the development of the new College of Art in what was once a distillery, I was more than taken by the interest shown in it by environmental experts, An Taisce and other groups that dedicated themselves to the kind of capital city that we should have. I sponsored that development and it is already in place. It would be a left bank type of development which would be suitable in this context — writers and artists. Baggot Street and McDaid's commanded in their time a certain kudos from the fact that certain artists and writers lived in, or frequented those places. There could be facilities made available, as in Annaghmakerrig in my own constituency, for artists from that area. We could do what has been advocated by me and many others in this House — give an opportunity to artists in that development also which would attract people to it, make ir more attractive for those who want, for example, to build, buy up or develop private residences in the area. What I am talking about is mainly the type of sculpture that we tried to encourage in public buildings at one time. I think there is a big fall-off now. This was appreciated by the people who saw the sculptures and of course also very much by those who were using the buildings.
The Minister put down an amendment to my motion as follows:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
"Dáil Éireann notes the measures already taken to restore viability to Dublin Port; the decisions on the Custom House Dock Site announced by the Taoiseach on Wednesday, 23rd October and the intention to introduce early legislation to enable the restructuring of Dublin Port and Docks Board".
The measures have been taken already. The Minister said in the House that the management and the unions dealing with the direct business of a port had it in their power to guarantee the survival of the port of Dublin. My motion calls for a concerted effort — and obviously the Dublin Chamber of Commerce is willing to take part in that effort — to bring back the business that has been lost to places as far away as Carrickfergus, Greenore, Drogheda and so forth with consequent heavy traffic and heavy wear and tear on our roads which are unable to bear them and are becoming, as this Government progresses, increasingly unable to bear them because of the lack of attention to and proper finance for road building.
I have already said that, despite the fact that we will shortly have reached the third anniversary of the taking over of this Government, until my motion was circulated there was not a word about this development. Courtesy of the Irish Independent on the following morning we got banner headlines about such a development being envisaged. It was probably stored away with two centimetres of dust on it and as soon as the motion reached the Deputies it was dusted off, shot into the Irish Independent and the way was prepared for the Taoiseach to come into the House. Más maith is mithid. Better late than never. There are a dozen clichés to cover it. The parts which we have advocated for some time will command the support of this side of the House. I would be interested to hear the Minister on the fine print of this development. I should like him to take the opportunity also of indicating when the legislation will come before the House, because until an institute for development has been established it will not be possible for this House to vote moneys or to know what is envisaged, whether it is to be a public and private mix or whether the institute will own and pay for the grant and then make allowance for the development of the port through joint deals or leases.
I move:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
"Dáil Éireann notes the measures already taken to restore viability to Dublin Port; the decisions on the Custom House Dock Site announced by the Taoiseach on Wednesday, 23rd October and the intention to introduce early legislation to enable the restructuring of Dublin Port and Docks Board."
Deputy Wilson is not a man who normally makes excessive claims but it is a little fanciful for him to suggest that the Government had this report lying on a shelf gathering dust and were only scared into action by Deputy Wilson placing this motion on the Order Paper. That is not the case and Deputy Wilson is well aware of it. An interdepartmental working party were looking at this question for 18 months. The report was received in August and an announcement was made the first day the Dáil sat after the recess.
I am glad of this opportunity for a short debate on the present position and future development of Dublin port. Under existing legislation it is the function of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, in common with all other harbour authorities scheduled to the Harbours Act, 1946, to draw up plans for the development of their respective harbours. Likewise it is the responsibility of the harbour boards to cater for existing trade and to seek to attract new business. That is their function and not the function of Government.
I am pleased to say that while Dublin Port and Docks Board in recent years may have displayed many weaknesses they have been exemplary in producing and implementing capital development plans. These plans have been based on rolled-up five year development programmes and the first such programme covered the period 1977-82. The board's major capital development plan has now been completed at a cost in excess of £17 million.
Works carried out under the plan include major improvements in facilities at the south bank container terminal where a new container crane and extended cargo handling area have been provided; additional cargo handling space has been provided on the north side and the principal road access has been brought to dual carriageway standard throughout its length; a new headquarters has been built; safety, fire fighting facilities, fresh and salt water supplies within the board's estate have been considerably updated and, finally, the construction of a 200-metre long deepwater berth south of the car ferry terminal capable of taking the largest roll-on/roll-off vessels likely to come into use in the cross-channel sector trade has been completed.
These works are, by and large, considered sufficient to meet the needs of the port to the end of this century. The board's capital development programme over the next few years envisages relatively minor works only. In this way the board plan to pursue a policy of consolidation while at the same time ensuring the most advantageous use of existing facilities without being involved in major expense.
I think I should say here that it is more than a little amusing that the Opposition should now be talking about the industrial and commercial revitalisation of Dublin. When it was expedient politically to do so in the past year or two, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip, both of whom happen to sit for one of the portal constituencies, namely Dublin North-Central, were to the forefront in committing themselves publicly and strongly to their Clontarf constituents against certain industrial development proposals of the Dublin Port and Docks Board for the foreshore near Clontarf. Deputies opposite often have very short memories. Deputy Brady has now left the House.
He will be back.
I am glad, since I should like to hear his explanation. He tabled several questions to me and challenged me on the Order of Business not to approve a harbour works order. Now we have an Opposition, of which Deputy Haughey is the Leader and Deputy Brady the Chief Whip, proposing the industrial and commercial revitalisation of Dublin port.
The board still have before me an application for a harbour works order. The matter is at present under consideration and I should be interested to know if Deputy Haughey and Deputy Vincent Brady would, in view of the motion before us, wish to support the granting of a harbour works order or not.
Is this to do with the storage of gas?
That has been disposed of since then by An Bord Pleanála. Deputies opposite, and the other two Deputies for the constituency, Deputy George Birmingham and Deputy Richard Bruton, were unanimous in pressing for the refusal of a harbour works order requested by the board. Now Deputies opposite are pressing for the revitalisation of the port, both industrially and commercially. Are they for or against a harbour works order? I should like to know, as would the constituents in the Clontarf area.
Until recently the financial position of Dublin Port and Docks Board had been a success story in terms of Irish ports, that is up to their decision to become involved in stevedoring through the establishment of Dublin Cargo Handling Limited which commenced operations in the deep sea section of the port in July 1982. The port had been so successful up to that time that the Dublin Port and Docks Board were able to undertake their major capital investment programme in 1978 without any Exchequer assistance. The board were in a position from which they could have survived the recession without major difficulty.
It is here that the story goes sour. Traffic at Dublin port has decreased from 7.9 million tonnes in the peak year of 1979 to 5.4 million tonnes in 1984. Three main factors have played their part in bringing about this decline, namely: (1) the international recession; (2) the drop in importation of oil due to natural gas and other factors and (3) persistent industrial relations problems in the deep sea sector over the past few years.
The first two are matters over which the Dublin Port and Docks Board and those who work in the port had no control. I will refer later to the third issue.
I see Deputy Vincent Brady is back in the House, so I will put again the questions I posed during his absence. Is he for or against the Harbour Works Order? Does he want the industrial and commercial revitalisation of the port or does he not? Is it not a fact that he has come in here on umpteen occasions, accompanied by Deputy Haughey, to speak against the Harbour Works Order? I can understand that, as I can understand the Minister of State, Deputy George Birmingham, and Deputy Richard Bruton opposing that order, but I cannot understand the inconsistency of this motion. I am sure the citizens of Clontarf would like Deputy Brady to take this opportunity to clarify his position. Is he for the port or is he against it? Is he for vote catching——
I have lost no opportunity to let them know.
I look forward to the Deputy's stand in this regard. From the establishment in July 1982 of Dublin Cargo Handling Ltd., a subsidiary of the Port and Docks Board, until recently, the deep-sea section of the port was plagued with industrial unrest, often affecting the whole port, arising out of disagreement over redundancies and interpretation of agreements. This resulted in a severe drain on the financial resources of the Port and Docks Board to such an extent that the very solvency of the board was called into question. That is to put it mildly.
In March this year the Government decided on a package of measures aimed at restoring financial equilibrium to the Port and Docks Board. Last May the Government gave further consideration to the financial position of the Dublin Port and Docks Board in response to a plea from the board for further assistance and in the light of a downward revision, on the basis of a report commissioned by the board from Coopers and Lybrand, of the projections upon which the Government's earlier consideration, in March 1985, of the position had been based.
The Government decided to provide a grant facility to the board of £3 million in the current year, which has already been paid, and equivalent amounts in 1986 and 1987 towards the cost of the board's capital development programme which, as I said earlier, has cost a total of over £17 million to date. It was never before necessary to provide grant assistance to the board.
The Government have also agreed to guarantee borrowings of £7 million by the board pending rectification of the board's financial position. The guaranteed borrowings are to be phased out over the years 1987-1988. In addition, two Local Loans Fund loans were agreed, but I will refer to this later. The Government have made it clear to the board that it must itself take steps to rectify its financial position through measures such as disposal of assets as well as cost-cutting and revenue increasing measures.
The industrial relations problems in the Dublin port were one of the three major components in its severe decline in trade. In several debates and discussions in the House during the past year, when people pressed me to save the port, I said that I could not save it, that the saving of the port was in the hands of those who manage it and who work there. Even if it was in the 59th minute of the 12th hour, I am very glad that agreement was reached, and I am encouraged by reports from the port as to how that agreement is being implemented. If the agreement continues to be implemented in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation we will have the major ingredient in the revival of Dublin port. So far, I am encouraged by the reports of what has happened in the port since the agreement was reached.
The State assistance was also contingent on the board putting the affairs of Dublin Cargo Handling Ltd. in order by concluding negotiations through DCH management for the rationalisation of the dock labour force. I am glad to say that this finally has been achieved. Now other parts of the rescue package are being finalised. Naturally there is resistence to the idea of increased charges from users and potential users. Already having allowed for the increased charges in the profit/loss forecast for the coming years, the board will need luck and firm, consistent and total support and co-operation from all who work in the port if viability is to be restored. The onus is on those who argue against the increase in charges to show how their option would increase the chances of viable operation.
This debate provides an opportunity to put the record straight on the board's proposal to dispose of port centre. Consent was witheld by me for a proposal by the Dublin Port and Docks Board to sell and lease-back the port centre because the terms were not satisfactory from the board's point of view. The proposed sale was the subject of a lot of controversy and I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the circumstances in which the Department of Communications requested the Port and Docks Board to take steps to secure a sale and lease-back arrangement for the port centre.
The Government rescue package included, as I said, a provision that the Port and Docks Board would take steps, including disposal of assets, to rectify its financial situation. The board had identified in December 1984 a number of possible disposable assets, including the Custom House Docks site and the sale and lease-back of the port centre. Subsequently, in March 1985, in the course of its financial review of the affairs of the board and its subsidiary. Dublin Cargo Handling Limited, Coopers and Lybrand referred to asset disposal possibilities, again including the Custom House Docks site and the port centre, which had been identified by the finance sub-committee of the Port and Docks Board. Apart from the Custom House Docks site, the single most valuable disposable asset identified was the port centre.
It was in the foregoing context that the Department of Communications, in conveying to the board in May last details of the Government's revised rescue package, requested the board to take steps to secure a sale and lease-back arrangement for the port centre and to report back on the outcome. I must reiterate that it is a matter for the board to select assets for disposal and then to seek ministerial approval in each case. Consent was withheld on this occasion because the terms were not satisfactory. I hope this will set the record straight on the issue.
Non-implementation of the board's proposal, for the present, for sale and lease-back of the port centre has had implications for the board in so far as bank borrowings are concerned. The board were informed accordingly that favourable consideration would be given to an application for a Local Loans Fund loan of £3 million on the understanding that such a loan would be used to reduce existing bank borrowing. Such an application is at present being finalised. This means that through grants, loan guarantees and direct loans, the Government have committed a total of £21.5 million as part of the rescue package for the board. That is broken up as follows: £9 million in grants over three years, £7 million in guarantees and £5.5 million from the Local Loans Fund because we gave an earlier local loans fund allocation this year of £2.5 million. That constitutes very substantial investment by the Government.
The call for measures to revitalise the undeveloped dockland area seems a bit behind times in view of the package of measures recently announced by the Government which will have just this effect.
The future of the Custom House Docks site has been considered by the Government in the light of the report of the inter-departmental working party who examined the matter. The Government decided that the Minister for the Environment should have a Bill drafted to provide for the establishment of a new authority to direct and control the redevelopment of the Custom House Docks site. Details of the transfer of the site from the Port and Docks Board will be addressed in the context of the Bill. A package of measures, already announced, designed to encourage investment in the site will be provided for by the Minister for Finance in the next Finance Bill. I do not want to go into this aspect of the issue in any great detail because the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment will speak later in this debate. As he chaired the interdepartmental working party on the Custom House Docks site I am sure he will have a lot more to say on the question.
In this context I do want to refer to the history of the problems of the port and docks board. There is no doubt that the political turbulence of the 1981-82 period has contributed in so far as a decision was taken to stop the ports and docks board from selling the Custom House docks site commercially. That decision was defensible because the 27 acres of the Dublin Port and Docks Board site constitute an extraordinary parcel of land to become available in the centre of Dublin. It has very great potential for development and for the revitalisation of the core of Dublin. I am not in any sense criticising the decision arrived at to the effect that this site is too important just to allow it pass out of the hands of a public authority without considering its implications or potential for the heart of Dublin. What we do have to say is that it did have implications for the port and docks board. At the time certain values were placed on that site by certain people, including agents on behalf of the port and docks board. Those values have been assumed almost into fact, as if they constituted an achieved fact, that that was an offer made to the port and docks board for the site. Of course, that was not the case. A valuation was placed on it at that time.
But they were going to be paid for by the Government, that is the important thing to remember.
I have been avoiding criticising the Government of the time in relation to the matter because I feel the decision of the Government to the effect that it was of importance was justified. Unfortunately, it got caught up in a milieu of political turbulence and survival at enormous cost and, in deference to one Deputy, that could hardly be defensible in retrospect. I do not think Deputy Wilson would now argue that that was something that Deputy Haughey and Fianna Fáil freely entered into, with a glad heart, or would want to do again.
We had studies already going in 1979 and 1981 and I quoted from them.
I am not disputing that nor am I disputing the rightness of the decision to the effect that this was an important site. I did not want to get drawn into the Gregory deal or anything like that. But, as a consequence of that decision, there were major implications for the port and docks board. I was saying that there were estimated values abated for the site at the time. Suffice it to say that the estimated values today are a great deal less. But we should not let go unchallenged previous estimates and maintain that if the site had been sold that they would have realised the sort of money about which they were talking at the time.
The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment will speak later and, I have no doubt, will want to say a lot more about that. When next year's Finance Bill is introduced it will contain legislative provisions for the financial incentives for the development of the Custom House docks site as announced by the Taoiseach in this House on 23 October.
I trust the House will commend the action taken by the Government to safeguard the future of Dublin port and to provide for early development of the Custom House docks site. However, it would be wrong to think that that is the end of the story. I have already decided to disband the port and docks board at the earliest opportunity and to create a new Dublin Ports Authority. This requires legislation and the necessary provisions are being included in the Harbours Bill, the heads of which have already been approved by the Government and the detailed terms of which are at present being drafted by the parliamentary draftsman. I expect to circulate the Bill during the Christmas recess and I look forward to enactment early next year. I should say that the principal purpose of this Bill will be the establishment of a Shannon Ports Authority and will have enabling provisions in relation to other major ports, including Dublin.
The disbanding of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and the appointment of a new authority allows us the opportunity to consider further the remit of the authority, including the role it might play in prompting revitalisation of the docklands area, not only for industrial and commercial purposes but also for housing and leisure purposes. In this regard I am conscious of similar development in docklands elsewhere.
In conclusion I want to revert to the importance of industrial relations in the port to the survival of Dublin port and its revitalisation. An agreement has now been reached and is being implemented. I hope that the agreement will be observed in its three years duration not only in letter but in spirit because it is in that spirit the future of the port lies. That is the best way to guarantee the future of the port. I should like to say to the workforce down there, particularly to the dockers who were involved in the troubled area, that as far as I am concerned, I would hope that everybody can put behind him the experiences, the decline and problems of the past and look forward to the future. I believe that if the board, management and staff work together in that spirit of co-operation the future of the port will be assured. The agreement was achieved after considerable and protracted negotiations, after several visits to the Labour Court and including a special report prepared by Mr. Horgan of the Labour Court for the docks group set up under him called the Docks Review Group.
I have to say that I regretted very much the interventions of the Opposition spokesman on Labour in those debates, a man for whom I have a lot of respect, Deputy Bertie Ahern. In this case he intervened several times both in this House and on radio in a most unhelpful way and did not at all contribute to the——
He was saving brothers and cousins.
——early conclusion of that agreement. Having said that I hope that everybody on this side of the House will now appreciate that major efforts have been made by the Government, the port and docks board themselves, the unions down there, to ensure the survival of that port and, I hope, its future prosperity.
How many dockers are left? 120 was the figure.
I will try to get that information for the Deputy.
This is a most important debate and it would be a great pity if either side were to endeavour to score political points. Mistakes have been made; they are being made and were made in the recent past. We must all accept that there are many jobs at stake here.
Dublin port was formed in 1876 following the merger of a number of smaller companies in the shipping area. Right into the nineteen hundreds Dublin port provided vast employment for the people of Dublin, particularly people on the north side of the city. I remember as a youngster, and I am sure the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, also remembers, hearing stories about the men who worked in Dublin port. Many of these stories were imaginary but there was an image built up about the port and it is part of the history of Dublin. Therefore, it is vitally important that a debate of this nature on the future development of Dublin port should be taken very seriously.
Deputy Wilson put forward a motion in that vein in the hope that this House will move the Government to make some decision to start things moving as far as Dublin port is concerned. The port has been stagnant for far too long and mistakes have been made. It is up to the Oireachtas to initiate ideas and it is the responsibility of the Government not only to initiate ideas but to put in redevelopment plans and to be responsible for those plans, thus ensuring that Dublin port will continue to be part and parcel of Dublin commercial life and will make progress in the years ahead. For that reason I support the motion put down by Deputy Wilson that a detailed plan for the redevelopment of Dublin port should be published to attract back lost business and to revitalise the undeveloped dockland area in regard to industrial, commercial, housing and leisure facilities which have been mentioned from time to time.
Dublin port was one of the busiest in the country and it occupied a very important position in commercial life. This was due perhaps to its geographical position and Dublin is very fortunate in being able to house one of the finest and most attractive ports. By saying it is attractive I do not mean only in appearance but also in relation to industry in so far as the movement of goods is concerned. The port contributed in a major way to employment, particularly in the inner city, and also to the many ancillary services arising from shipping in Dublin. The Horgan report published in 1984 was very significant and it is a great pity that the report, which went into great detail, has been lying on the shelves in Government Departments since then. I know the Minister repudiated that in his speech but the Horgan report has been ignored and no action has been taken along the lines suggested in it. The report made it very clear that urgent and emergency action was required as far as Dublin port was concerned. Many ports in other parts of the country have been expanding rapidly at the expense of Dublin. To a very large extent, Dublin unfortunately has priced itself out of the market as far as the economic costs of shipping are concerned. It is very clear that many firms in Dublin are now using other ports for economic and other reasons.
I was a member of the Dublin Ports and Docks Board for a couple of years and, therefore, I have some idea of what is happening there. While very genuine and good proposals were put forward from time to time by the manager of Dublin port through the board, a number of other proposals were obviously not commercially viable. Unfortunately, many of these proposals were accepted by the board which comprised people who had little or no contact with the day to day activities of the company. That was one of the main weaknesses of Dublin port as I experienced it during my time there. One of the main problems, as far as administration of the port is concerned, was the absence of any real input into its commercial and day to day activities by the board which comprised representatives of local authorities, the chamber of commerce, trade unions, various exporters' and importers' associations and a number of other vested interests operating in the port. Talking about vested interests, when any matter comes up before a board there is always a human element involved and decisions can be made regarding vested interests which are totally at variance with and against the better interests of the port, the users of the port and the employees.
Board members attended a meeting once a month and at that meeting were presented with wads of documents, papers and reports. Sometimes these papers were given to them two or three days before a meeting and, when it is remembered that most of these people were very active in other areas of business, it would not be unfair to assume that many of these documents were not investigated properly. Even if they were read, there was no time or opportunity for a member to have an in depth investigation or inquiry in to what action they should take in relation to the various proposals put forward.
One of the biggest mistakes in recent years was the setting up of the stevedoring company, Dublin Cargo Handling, which was formed at a time when there were massive liabilities of many millions of pounds. The Minister indicated that the trouble started with the setting up of Dublin Cargo Handling but this is not the case. Anybody who looks at the accounts of Dublin Port and Docks Board will readily see that the board were running into serious financial difficulties even at that time. That is why there was a lot of opposition to the proposal by the management to go into the stevedoring business at that time because it was obvious that we were coming into a time of deep depression.
Problems were already on the horizon, finances were weak and the financial situation was not as sound as it should have been and certainly not sufficiently sound to embark on a venture such as that which the Dublin Port and Docks Board embarked on at that time, the setting up of a stevedoring company. In setting up that company, they also took over liabilities of something in the region of £3 million at a time when there was such a serious depression in trade and in commercial business. That was not a wise move commercially and any private enterprise seeking advice on a similar proposal would have been told to run 1,000 miles from it. It rubberstamped and increased the difficulties of the board from that time on.
It should also be borne in mind that at that time trade in Dublin port had been reduced by up to 20 per cent. It can, therefore, be safely assumed that the management decision recommending the setting up of DCH to the board was disastrous. Later on it also brought in its wake a series of other major problems, not least of which was a continuation of industrial strife in the port. In fairness to the management at the time, industrial strife had existed in the port for some years previously and one of the main reasons put forward at the time for the formation of Dublin Cargo Handling was that Dublin Port and Docks Board could control the industrial relations and problems and could monitor the situation as they were directly involved in stevedoring. They foresaw that there might not be industrial strife in the port and that the situation would improve radically. However, that was not to be, because industrial disputes multiplied shortly after the DCH were set up. What happened after that is history and has been debated in the House on numerous occasions.
Apart from rising costs in Dublin port, industrial stoppages were a major contributory factor in the loss of trade. Exporters and importers could not depend on the port to handle their goods. During a number of disputes many companies were almost put out of business because their goods were locked in a labour dispute which means serious financial losses for the users of the port. That happened on a number of occasions. It is clear from a commercial point of view that any customer finding himself in that situation on a regular basis would not continue to use the facilities in Dublin, particularly when alternatives were available at a lower price. That is why such trade was lost to Dublin port.
We were in a time of depression. However, as can be seen from figures published some time ago, while business in various ports throughout the country increased, Dublin port lost considerably. From 1980 to 1984 there was a 7 per cent increase in trade through other ports but Dublin lost out by 16 per cent. Dublin Cargo Handling were formed in 1982 or 1983. During that time Cork increased its port trade by 11 per cent and Drogheda, a small port 30 miles from Dublin that does not possess the facilities available at Dublin, increased its trade by 67 per cent. These figures speak for themselves. They show that other ports have been very successful with an overall increase of 7 per cent in trade.
With that background it is not surprising that Dublin port has proved unattractive to its customers. As we have seen from the figures, the provincial ports were the winners because they offered greater reliability and stability to the customer at a lower cost and this despite the fact that they have not the same kind of facilities that exist in Dublin port. In that connection I should like to congratulate the engineers in Dublin port and docks for their efforts to introduce modern machinery, cranes and so on. They did that despite grave difficulties. They did it independently, relying on the forecasts and budgets of the people in the Dublin Port and Docks Board. Unfortunately the projections in those budgets were not realised.
There has never been as much discontent in any industry as there has been in Dublin port in recent years. While dockers worldwide have a reputation for being difficult people to control, I do not subscribe to the view that the cause of the problem in Dublin was one sided. Unfortunately that view is put across far too frequently. It is said the dockers are difficult to control and manage and that they are unreasonable but from my experience I cannot agree with that viewpoint. I have seen both sides. It is unfortunate that there has not been sufficient flexibility on the part of management in Dublin port during times of strife and industrial stress. In recent years management in the port has become very inflexible. On a number of occasions attempts were made to sit out disputes that went on for months and, in the meantime, viable business was lost. Unfortunately, management seemed totally unaware of the prospect that business would be lost forever but that is what happened. That is not a sign of good or experienced management. There must be flexibility where dockers are concerned but that did not exist in Dublin. What we are dealing with tonight is the consequence of those actions which are part of the overall problem in Dublin port.
In recent times members of the board have endeavoured to shift the blame to various Governments. They have referred to the Fianna Fáil Government of 1981-82 when a decision was taken by the then Government to take over a 20-acre site for development.
Buck passing.
At that time that decision was criticised by Fine Gael in Opposition but, after a lapse of three years. Fine Gael now in Government have proposed precisely the same kind of action but with some differences about which I have doubts. However, in principle the proposal is basically the same as that brought in by us. When Fine Gael were in Opposition they slated the proposal and made all kinds of accusations——
Deputy Gregory took it over and we objected to that.
They have now come back with a proposal. We say it is a good proposal and we are glad they have brought it forward but there are some weaknesses in it.
We will show the Deputy what is involved tomorrow night.
An attempt was made by management to pass the buck to Governments. I have pointed out that there was considerable mismanagement of the port which caused many problems. The Port and Docks Board cannot seriously maintain that the actions of the then Government caused them financial difficulties. They were operating at a major loss of £1 million per month. That was at a time when it was obvious that business activity was totally depressed so far as Dublin was concerned. That port lost business it would never regain. Budgets by the management at the time were pie in the sky. The blame for the financial state of the port must be laid fairly and squarely where it belongs. mainly, with the board themselves. Let there be no mistake about that. The board produced crazy budgets and crazy forecasts that could not be realised: approximately only 50 per cent or 60 per cent was realised. This was the cause of many of the problems of Dublin port in the past few years.
The Horgan report made all of these points. It proposed urgent action to bring the port to a break even point with the propect of getting into a profit-making situation in the future. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the Government have not taken action. The guarantees of the Minister to the port in recent months for small amounts of money will not do anything for the port. The fact that smaller ports have continued to prosper at the expense of Dublin is in itself an indictment. It will take firm and novel action to regain the confidence of the business community to return their business to Dublin on the scale needed to develop and to promote Dublin to the standards that should obtain in a capital city.
This development must also be seen to be beneficial to all parts of the community. I should like to refer to the proposal not long ago by Dublin port to lease part of the reclaimed land for the building of underground caverns for the storage of LPG.
Debate adjourned.