Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1989

Vol. 393 No. 5

Dún Laoghaire Harbour Bill, 1989: Committee Stage.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Section 1 is a definition section and deals with such matters as the appointment day of commissioners, Dún Laoghaire harbour, functions, the Minister and so on.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are deemed out of order. Amendment No. 3 is in the name of Deputy Madeleine Taylor-Quinn. I now call the Deputy to move her amendment.

On a point of order, I must say that I do not understand why my amendments on the establishment of a Dún Laoghaire Harbour Authority were ruled out of order. There has been general agreement in this House that a Dún Laoghaire Harbour Authority should be established. The Minister has promised that it would be established and we were told that the names of the members of the interim authority and the terms of reference for such an authority would be announced before now, so perhaps the Minister can enlighten us during the course of the discussion. As I said on Second Stage, it seems——

My decision has been conveyed to you. It is quite clear that the reason your amendment was ruled out of order is as stated by me: it involves a potential charge on the Revenue and is furthermore in conflict with the provisions of the Bill as read a Second Time. With regard to your suggestion that the matter be extended to include a harbour authority for Dún Laoghaire, let me say the question of the establishment of a harbour authority or planning arrangements are separate issues which are outside the scope of the Bill. These are some of the reasons your amendments were ruled out of order.

Mr. Gilmore rose.

I am sorry, Deputy, we can have no argument about the matter. I have clarified the position to the best of my ability. We must proceed and I call Deputy Taylor-Quinn.

Can you answer, a Cheann Comhairle——

The question is not open for debate. My rulings in such matters may not be debated or challenged in the House.

A Cheann Comhairle, quite frankly we are wasting our time dealing with a Bill which simply transfers the administration from one Government Department to another.

It is quite clear to me and to this House that the Bill we are now dealing with is of very narrow and limited scope——

You can say that again.

——involving only the transfer of responsibilities for Dún Laoghaire harbour from the Commissioners of Public Works to the Minister for the Marine. That is the scope of the Bill. If you want to discuss the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Authority, you must do so in another way at another time.

I now call on Deputy Taylor-Quinn to move amendment No. 3.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 2, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—(1) The transfer of control of Dún Laoghaire harbour effected by this Act shall have effect for 2 years from the appointed day.

(2) At the end of the period referred to in subsection (1) the Act shall lapse unless within that time an order confirming the continued operation of the Act shall have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas".

I am also disappointed that my amendment, amendment No. 2, has been ruled out of order——

It is for the very same reasons that I outlined to Deputy Gilmore.

——because you Sir, believe that it would incur an additional charge on the Exchequer and that it is outside the scope of the Bill. However, I must express my disappointment at this, because I believe there is an urgent need to set up a harbour authority and because the Minister promised in this House that within a few days of the Second Reading — which is now ten days ago — an interim harbour authority would be appointed. To date this has not been done. However, anticipating that the amendment would be ruled out of order, I tabled the amendment that is now before us.

I tabled this amendment because I believe we should have a harbour authority Bill before the House. The Bill before us is just a transfer of jurisdiction from one Department to another and is basically a transfer of responsibilities without additional improvements for Dún Laoghaire harbour. It is unfortunate that we have this Mickey Mouse Bill before us, which is doing nothing to further promote or develop the area taking account of neither the wishes and desires of the people of Dún Laoghaire nor the recommendations of the Planning Review Group, which published a report a year ago. The Planning Review Group strongly recommended the setting up of a harbour authority, set out what that authority should do for Dún Laoghaire and outlined the areas where specific developments be they commercial, recreational or leisure should take place. This Bill does nothing in that regard.

It is very important that there is a time limit to this Bill so that it will come back to the House within two years in the event of a harbour authority not being set up. I am tabling this amendment as a precautionary measure, hoping of course that the Bill will never have to come back to the House, that a harbour authority Bill will have been passed within the two years concerned. I would urge the Minister to recognise the importance of developing this tremendous asset not just to the borough of Dún Laoghaire but to the nation. There is tremendous potential there particularly for recreational development and subsequently for employment. In the area of marina development, all the ancillary activities that can result from such a development in the area would give additional employment in an area with high unemployment at the moment. It is important that the Minister recognises the importance of this.

It is important too that reports commissioned by former Ministers on which public money has been spent are not left on the shelf to gather dust but that Departments act constructively on them. This is an ideal opportunity for a Department to act constructively on the report of the review group which is basically a highly commendable report. The Minister should not avail himself of this opportunity. I would again ask him in the House today to let us know when he intends bringing legislation before the House to set up a Dún Laoghaire harbour authority and, in the meantime, when he intends announcing an interim harbour authority, which of course is only a fake-out and is unacceptable because what we should have is a proper harbour authority and legislation dealing with it should be before the House. There are tremendous opportunities and tremendous potential in this regard.

What I am concerned about is the delays in and the shying away from the setting up of a harbour authority. Why is there fear of this? What exactly is going on? What is the reason for the legislation not being before the House? Are there some vested interests being accommodated or some persons or groupings of people with specific private interests requiring protection and are the Department protecting them at present? We in this House would like to know the real reason. The people of Dún Laoghaire and the members of the borough council are particularly concerned that permission for the further development of the harbour should not be given until a proper harbour authority is set up. I hope the Minister will recognise and accept that. I hope that, in hiving off responsibilities in the future to an interim authority, he will not be able to hide under the cloak of that authority in the event of their giving permission for specific developments in relation to Dún Laoghaire harbour.

I have tabled this amendment because of my fears that a Dún Laoghaire harbour authority may not be established. I hope that within the two years proposed in the amendment the provision for a harbour authority will have been passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas and that a proper harbour authority will be in place in line with the wishes of the people of Dún Laoghaire borough and with the recommendations of the report of the planning review group.

I support Deputy Taylor-Quinn's amendment. The main requirement that has been sought in Dún Laoghaire for a long time is the establishment of a harbour authority, that that harbour authority would draw up a management plan for the harbour, that it would harmonise that plan with the plans of Dún Laoghaire borough council for the development of Dún Laoghaire borough itself, that there would be orderly development and management of Dún Laoghaire harbour, that the facility the harbour provides would be used to enhance the prospects for recreational use by a greater number of people than is the case at present and that it would do something to create much needed employment in the area. That objective seems to have had the verbal approval of Government for some time. The Minister is on record on a number of occasions as having stated that it is his intention to establish a harbour authority. In the middle of September he promised a deputation from the borough council that he would announce, within two weeks, the names of members and terms of reference of an interim harbour authority. That promise was repeated in this House almost two weeks ago by the Minister of State and the announcement was to be made by last Wednesday but we are still waiting for it.

The Minister should clarify today whether he is going to establish an interim harbour authority; if so, who the members of that interim authority will be and what are its terms of reference. He should not delay any longer in making that announcement because the longer he delays the more speculation it is giving rise to. There is increasing speculation that we are getting back to the gubu days of early 1988 when proposals which were totally unacceptable to the people of Dún Laoghaire were being foisted upon us and local people were very concerned that they had no input to it.

If I have one reservation about Deputy Taylor-Quinn's amendment it is that two years is far too long to have to wait — although I appreciate the reasons she has stated two years — for the statutory establishment of a harbour authority. There are a lot of developments now taking place in the whole harbour area and I have some concern that Dún Laoghaire will miss out on those developments if the appropriate measures are not taken to establish a harbour authority. There is considerable concern locally about the future of the car ferry. Everybody knows that the future of the car ferry in Dún Laoghaire depends on the improvement of passenger facilities and the Minister is on record as supporting this. Again there is concern that without a harbour authority to make the case for Dún Laoghaire harbour, those improvements in facilities will not take place.

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I am bound to say that I gave to Deputy Madeline Taylor-Quinn and to the Deputy in possession quite a considerable amount of latitude in respect of their continuous references to a harbour authority. I have to again state that the Bill we are discussing in committee is very narrow in its scope; it merely involves the transfer of responsibility for Dún Laoghaire harbour from the Commissioners of Public Works to the Minister for the Marine. The question of a harbour authority, planning arrangements and all matters pertaining thereto are clearly outside the scope of the Bill. I want to dissuade Members from any further extensive reference to a harbour authority because it simply does not arise on this Bill. By reason of the close relationship of the two matters the Chair has given quite a lot of latitude but wishes to dissuade Members now from making Second Reading speeches on this, the Third Stage of the Bill in respect of a harbour authority.

I would ask Deputies from now on to confine their remarks to the amendments before us and to the Committee Stage proper of the Bill. I hope you will accept my advice on this matter and accept further, as I said earlier, that I have given some considerable latitude in the matter of the extension beyond the scope of this Bill to the provision of a harbour authority. The matter of a harbour authority for Dún Laoghaire will have to be decided at another time. There is no further scope for it within the confines of this Bill.

In some respects I think you are summarising the state of play regarding this whole issue because it is becoming increasingly clear to me that the idea of a Dún Laoghaire harbour authority is very much becoming an unmentionable term in this House. I would be quite happy to stop using it if the Minister was willing to simply state the names of the members and terms of reference of the interim authority he promised to establish some time ago, if for no other reason than to put some of the local members of his own party who are expecting to be nominated to it out of their agony. At my last count, the membership of the authority will far exceed the number of members, six or seven, originally intended.

I was addressing myself to the amendment put down by Deputy Taylor-Quinn and pointing out that two years would be too long to wait for a harbour authority to be put in place. I accept the Deputy's reasons for putting the amendment down and I am quite happy to support it.

Let me make one final point, and some clarification is required from the Minister on this. As you said, a Cheann Comhairle, this is very limited legislation, too limited. The Minister has now made two speeches in this House, the first in July when introducing the Estimate for the Department of the Marine and the other some days ago in moving the Second Stage of this Bill. I find it strange that he made no reference in either speech to the report of the planning review group which is now 12 months old and which sets out the formula for the future management and control of Dún Laoghaire harbour and future plans for it. I am greatly concerned that this report may now be dead as far as the Minister and his Department are concerned. I appreciate, a Cheann Comhairle, the point you have made, that this is very limited legislation, but this is a very important issue in my constituency. This is my constituency's biggest asset and the most important element of our local economy. I find it very difficult to address myself to this subject without dealing with the wider issues I have referred to. I said on Second Stage——

I have given the Deputy considerable scope. I am sure he appreciates that.

I do not intend to overstay my welcome but I wish to make the point that the issue involved is much wider. If this Bill had gone through 12 months ago to give effect to something that was already in place this would have been understandable but it is a great pity that we are dealing with limited legislation when in fact what is needed is a Bill to establish a harbour authority and for us to get on with the proper management and development of Dún Laoghaire harbour.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I would like to remind the House that if we had put this Bill through 12 months ago we would not have had the benefit of the Deputy's wisdom in putting it through. Therefore, we cannot but gain in putting it through at this time.

I do not propose to put a limit on this Bill or when I will bring forward any further legislation for more permanent arrangements at Dún Laoghaire. In considering what permanent arrangement is best suited for Dún Laoghaire I will take into account the various comments made here by the Deputies representing their parties and whatever points are made in Seanad Éireann when it is going through that House, plus the report of the Dún Laoghaire review group, mentioned by Deputy Gilmore, and also the views of the interim harbour board which I am setting up, the terms of reference and the personnel of which will be announced in the next few days.

Let me make a few comments on Deputy Taylor-Quinn's contribution. I would like to point out to her, and I know this from visting Dún Laoghaire and keeping in contact with people living there, that the people of Dún Laoghaire have already expressed their delight at the many innovative developmental actions — I am sure the Deputy will vouch for this — which have taken place in Dún Laoghaire since this Department took over control of the harbour on 1 January 1989. As you pointed out, a Cheann Comhairle, all we are doing is giving statutory effect to what has already happened in that matter.

I agree with both Deputies when they say that Dún Laoghaire harbour is a national asset and a marina development, which, as the Deputy from Dún Laoghaire knows, I spoke about when I met him on a deputation, has great potential for employment in the area. I think the last word I said to that deputation was for them to give their best thought and consideration to marina developments for that purpose, for the general economic development of the area and, of course, the provision of employment which is the result.

I can assure Deputy Taylor-Quinn that the report is not gathering dust. In fact, there is no dust in my office. She also mentioned fear. As there is no dust, neither is there any fear. Therefore, innuendoes of any kind are not in order in that regard.

Let me now take up some of the points made by Deputy Gilmore without referring to what is out of order. He said that greater use of Dún Laoghaire harbour is desirable for recreational purposes. I think he will agree with me when I say that the thrust of our activity has been in that direction since we took over on 1 January this year.

I think I have answered already the Deputy's point on the interim board. We took great care in working out the terms of reference. I am sorry if there has been angst in Dún Laoghaire, as the Deputy indicates, because of this delay. I would not like anybody, including the supporters of the Deputy's party or of my own, to be suffering from any undue angst in this regard. The review group will not be ignored. As I have already stated, the contributions made in this House and in Seanad Éireann, along with the recommendations of the review group and the interim board, will be taken on board and nothing will be ignored. I am opposed to the amendment.

May I ask how stands the amendment? May I put the amendment or is it withdrawn?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 73.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finnucane, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No.4:

In page 3, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The terms and conditions of employment of any member of staff who is employed by the Commissioners or by the Minister at Dún Laoghaire Harbour shall not while he is in the employment of the Commissioners or of the Minister, be less favourable to him than those prevailing immediately before the transfer of control.".

In any situation where the control of any employment or any body is being transferred there is understandable concern among the staff who work there about where they stand. There is concern among the people who work in Dún Laoghaire harbour, the employees of the Office of Public Works and the Department of the Marine, first about the security of their employment and second about their conditions of employment. It is important that in a Bill like this there should be specific provision to protect the rights and interests of the employees concerned. Virtually everything has been covered in the Bill, property, money, contracts, legal proceedings. No specific clause has been written into the Bill which would protect the interests of the employees.

The amendment I am proposing would seek to do that. It would be a fairly standard clause which appears in quite a lot of legislation to protect the interests of employees and make sure that there would be no worsening of their position and that their position, following the transfer of control, would be no worse than it was previously.

I hope the Minister will accept that amendment which I feel would strengthen the Bill and allay any fears which the employees at Dún Laoghaire harbour may have.

Last Friday week when the Bill was first mooted in the House certain suggestions were made to the Minister who said he would consider them. I believe he was very sincere in his approach. An important aspect of the Bill is how it will affect the people of Dún Laoghaire. It is also important that the workers of Dún Laoghaire be safeguarded in any Bill that comes before the House.

I appreciate that this is purely a technical Bill to enable transfer of control from one Department to another. I emphasise the need for protection for the people who live and work in Dún Laoghaire. I believe this amendment allays any doubts or fears they may have regarding their future. In the event of a harbour authority being established in Dún Laoghaire, Dún Laoghaire port will go from strength to strength, and we can look forward to an increase in the workforce there, but we must alleviate the fears of people who are already there. I have had experience on the trade union side and I know that when there is a change-over of any nature, technical or otherwise, certain fears are expressed by the workforce about how it will affect them. Those fears should be allayed and people who have worked all their lives in Dún Laoghaire should be protected.

I have no hesitation in asking the Minister to accept this amendment which copperfastens protection for the workforce. This should be in the Bill. The last day we debated this the Minister indicated that it would not affect the workforce, but this would copperfasten it into law.

I can appreciate and understand the sentiments expressed by Deputy Gilmore in tabling this amendment, and he must be commended for doing so. While on the face of it this Bill appears to be a technical one, the people on the ground see it as a major move. People who have worked for the Office of Public Works and operated in Dún Laoghaire for many years now see a new structure, management and Department taking over the running of Dún Laoghaire harbour. Needless to say, that raises certain apprehensions, fears and concern about their future and how long they will remain in employment in Dún Laoghaire. With the possible change in the usage of the area and new developments of various kinds, they may be particularly apprehensive about their future and whether they could be subject to transfer within the public service to the Department of the Marine or another section of the general public service. One must understand and appreciate these concerns.

In tabling this amendment Deputy Gilmore has given the Minister an ideal opportunity to allay any fears the present employees of the Commissioners of Public Works in Dún Laoghaire may have, and to assure them that their future is secure in Dún Laoghaire, that their existing conditions of employment will be at least maintained, if not improved, under the new structures in the Department of the Marine and in future under the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Authority. When he is putting together the legislation I ask him to keep in mind the employees in Dún Laoghaire. I support the amendment.

I support the amendment. Unfortunately, when the Second Stage of the Bill was being discussed last Friday I was in Limerick and was not able to participate in the debate.

As somebody born in Dún Laoghaire I know of many families there, fathers and sons, who have worked in the service of Dún Laoghaire harbour and they cannot, for the life of them, understand the nonsense that we are transferring responsibility for the maintenance and control of Dún Laoghaire harbour from one Department to another. Everybody knows that what we really need and want is a harbour authority, as has been indicated in the recent past. This is more of the nonsense bureaucracy that goes on in this country, and in the middle of it all the employees who have spent a lifetime working in the service of Dún Laoghaire harbour do not know whether they are coming or going. The last people ever consulted on any of these matters are, of course, the staff. While political decisions are taken in Cabinet rooms people forget that many families depend for their livelihood on Dún Laoghaire harbour not alone maintaining the status quo but availing of its potential for improvement in the future.

There are rumours that the maintenance staff in Dún Laoghaire are going to be transferred to the centre of Dublin. That is more nonsense. Is the property owned by the Office of Public Works outside the harbour of Dún Laoghaire to be transferred? Will the employees have to face the added expense of bus fares from and to Dún Laoghaire, plus extra hours travelling when they have to go back to Dún Laoghaire to carry out the maintenance needed throughout the harbour area?

There is also the post of harbour master. Perhaps we will have such a person in the Department of the Marine in future who will be responsible for the control and maintenance of the harbour and the staff working there.

Deputy Gilmore's amendment gives us an opportunity of not alone giving an assurance to the staff who have spent many years in the service of the State working in the harbour of Dún Laoghaire but of having certain pertinent questions answered before this nonsense is completed.

If the Minister and his Government have thought this out, he owes it to everybody here today when replying to Deputy Gilmore's amendment to spell out loud and clear what is going to happen to the staff, where they will be located, who will be responsible from a management point of view for the day-to-day position and what will happen to the property owned by the Office of Public Works outside the harbour which is not covered by this Bill but which was used for staff, materials and so on needed for the various maintenance jobs that have to be done in the harbour.

If we have an opportunity to vote against this Bill, I hope I can persuade my colleague, Deputy Taylor-Quinn, to do so on the basis that we reject the bureaucracy and the nonsense that is going on here. The Minister was out in Dún Laoghaire a few weeks ago and announced the establishment of an interim harbour authority for Dún Laoghaire, which is the first phase in setting up a full harbour authority. Now we see the Fianna Fáil Government with their PD allies voting down a reasonable amendment suggesting that if we have to have nonsense we will have it for only a short period and that the necessary legislation will have to be brought forward to have a harbour authority in place in Dún Laoghaire. Then this nonsense we are going through will be stopped, at least after a period of two years.

For the life of me I cannot understand why we are wasting taxpayers' money on this sort of nonsense and civil servants who have far more important things to do with their time are dragged in here to spend hours on legislation being put through the House to transfer responsibility from one Department to another when the Minister is out in the constituency announcing he is going to set up a harbour authority. Is it any wonder people are cynical about what goes on in this great old establishment when we can give no assurance to the staff, when we have no concept of what the future management structures are going to be and what is to happen to these staff? Are they to be shunted into the centre of Dublin with, as I said, the added expense of travelling in and out on buses or the DART or whatever means of transport they want to use? This would involve the loss of working hours, coming back again, during the course of their working day to carry out the work they are doing there at present. Nobody would believe that we could be so stupid as to do what we are doing here.

A Cabinet decision was taken about three or three-and-a-half years ago to set up a harbour authority for Dún Laoghaire. It has been denied in this Chamber on occasions, but I know that a Cabinet decision was taken and that the Department were instructed to proceed with the preparation of legislation for the setting up of a harbour authority. I heard the Minister of State, about 18 months ago, deny flatly in the House that this ever took place. I was present when it took place. I was also present when the then Taoiseach arrived at the Dún Laoghaire Chamber of Commerce, on the same evening that that Cabinet meeting was held, to announce formally the decision to set up a harbour authority. Two-and-a-half or three years later the only piece of legislation we have got is the transfer of responsibility of Dún Laoghaire harbour from the Office of Public Works——

The Deputy missed the Second Stage speech.

——to the Department of the Marine. If the Minister wants to start interrupting me I will give as good as I get. If the Minister wants to go out to Dún Laoghaire and play politics and give commitments that he will announce interim harbour authorities and then we do not hear anything about them, well then that is his business. I am entitled to come in here and express my view——

On the amendment.

The Minister is not in the Chair either. He is getting bad habits from the Taoiseach who shouts down everybody else when they have a point to make. I am in here to speak on behalf of ordinary people whose money is being wasted with this sort of nonsense, transferring responsibility from one Department to another, when at the same time we are being told that harbour authorities are being set up. Like Deputy Gilmore I am here——

He is better informed.

——and Deputy Hillery——

They are better informed.

Are they? Well, that is fair enough. I am here to defend the rights of people who have spent their lives working at Dún Laoghaire harbour. When I say things the Minister does not like to hear that is his problem, but he will not shout me down. If the Minister is serious in any way about this whole piece of nonsense at least, to show his goodwill towards the staff, he could accept this amendment in the name of Deputy Gilmore. When replying to the amendment I hope he will give us the type of information I sought in relation to the future of the staff, the management structures and the location of the staff. Perhaps he might also avail of the opportunity to let us know the names of the interim harbour authority before we complete this piece of nonsense. He might then get some good out of the whole debate.

I would like to say that I support the amendment put down by Deputy Gilmore. I will not take up the time of the House because the three Deputies who have spoken have adequately dealt with the staff position which, of course, is very serious. I appeal to the Minister to accept this very reasonable amendment. Apart from anything else, it should act as a reassurance to the staff that this is specifically built into this legislation.

First of all, I want to say, as a former practising trade unionist, that I regard Deputy Gilmore's concern for the security and conditions of work at Dún Laoghaire as a legitimate concern. Under the present regime no concern has been expressed to my Department with regard to our arrangements. I agree with Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan who spoke in much the same terms about the importance of the workers and his concern for fears that workers may have regarding the transfer. Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn in measured——

Sorry, Deputy Taylor-Quinn in a measured and concerned way said there was a certain apprehension about the work and working conditions of the staff. The objective of the Bill is to prepare the way for a development of the harbour in such a way that there will be more workers, more employment and more development in the harbour than there has been for some time. I am surprised that Deputy Barrett came in here, obviously trying to make up for missing the Second Stage of the Bill, to talk about the nonsense we are going through. He is not very closely in touch with Dún Laoghaire harbour in his own constituency if he does not know already that since 1 January of this year there has been considerable development under the new non-statutory arrangement whereby my Department have charge of the harbour. If we were aware of what was happening in his own constituency he would know that the people, including the public representatives of all parties in the area, have welcomed the new energy that is being injected into the activities in Dún Laoghaire. In relation to livelihoods, I have already made the point that we want to develop the harbour in such a way that there will be more work available in the area and our staff in Dún Laoghaire are not being transferred anywhere. I do not know where he got that idea. He must have been reading some fairytales because no such transfer is envisaged.

He kept talking about "nonsense". He was totally inaccurate in that I did not go out to Dún Laoghaire and announce the formation of an interim harbour authority. If the Deputy had been au fait with what was going on in his constituency he would know that a representative deputation from Dún Laoghaire, which included an intelligent and articulate member of his own political party, met me and it was at that meeting that this was promised.

Regarding the actual amendment, I took very great care with section 7 and consulted legally. I have been advised that the new subsection proposed by the Deputy is adequately covered by section 7 of the Bill. It is important that we should take a little care when reading section 7 which states:

Every bond, guarantee or other security of a continuing nature made or given by or on behalf of the Commissioners to any person in the performance of a function transferred by section 3 of this Act, or by any person to the Commissioners and accepted by or on behalf of the Commissioners in the performance of such a function, and in force immediately before the appointed day, and every contract—

—it was in relation to those words that I asked for legal advice. I am informed that that includes workers contracts—

or agreement in writing made between the Commissioners in the performance of such a function and another person and in force but not fully executed and completed immediately before the appointed day, shall continue in force on and after the appointed day and shall be construed and have effect as if the name of the Minister were substituted therein for that of the Commissioners and such security, contract or agreement shall be enforceable by or against the Minister.

All the industrial staff who became employees of my Department on 1 January 1989 and are employed under contract were written to in November 1988 and informed that they retain their basic conditions of employment, such as rates of pay, entitlement to sick pay and superannuation benefits. They have also been informed that their employment in the Department of the Marine is, as was the case in the Office of Public Works, subject to the terms and conditions negotiated on their behalf by the National Joint Industrial Council for State Industrial Employees. The unions representing the industrial staff have also been given this information.

I have taken on board the concern of Deputies for the workers in Dún Laoghaire. I have indicated that there is no proposal to transfer them anywhere and that their work contracts etc. are valid and hold for them now as they did when they came under the Commissioners of Public Works.

The Minister took Deputy Seán Barrett to task over some of the things he said. I agree by and large with what Deputy Barrett has said. During the Second Stage debate I said something similar when I said it was a waste of parliamentary time debating a Bill to give statutory effect to something which is already in place when what is really needed is the establishment of a harbour authority and the implementation of the more acceptable recommendations of the planning review group.

Regarding this amendment, I do not agree that section 7 covers adequately the protection of the employment of workers at Dún Laoghaire harbour or their conditions of employment. One of the few things I share with the Minister is that I, too, am a former practising trade unionist, although I suspect that the circumstances of my departure from practising as a trade union official and the Minister's departure may have been somewhat different.

I was not paid.

I am not paid either. At least the Minister got a "thank you" when he was going; I did not. There is a difference between stating in a general way that contracts are protected and providing specific protection. If we carried the Minister's logic to its conclusion we would leave the Bill as section 7 and argue that it covers every other eventuality. Why is it claimed that section 7 automatically covers the rights of workers but not necessarily the questions of money or property, which are provided for in section 2? Neither do I accept that a letter or an agreement, as the Minister describes it, is as strong as building into legislation the statutory protection of employees which I am seeking. In any situation where there is a change of ownership, a new employer, some kind of amalgamation or merger and a shift in the employment of staff, it is essential that the employees be protected. The kind of letter the Minister has spoken about could, if circumstances changed, be altered. It does not substitute for building into the Bill the provision I am seeking.

The amendment I have tabled is a direct lift from other legislation passed by this House which protects the right of employees in State organisations. I do not believe that the workers at Dún Laoghaire harbour should enjoy any less protection than other employees in a State organisation which has had some kind of change approved by this House. I am very disappointed that the Minister has not agreed to accept the amendment or at least given an undertaking to introduce a similar amendment on report Stage. That being the case, I will want to put this amendment to the House.

I support Deputy Gilmore in his amendment. It is rather unfortunate that the only reply the Minister could give to the points I made in the debate was to engage in a personal attack on me and my so-called lack of knowledge of the Dún Laoghaire constituency. I will leave that to people to judge. I have spent 45 years of my life in Dún Laoghaire and I do not need a Cavan man to tell me what is going on in Dún Laoghaire every day of the week.

I first encountered it as an emigrant.

It is a sad reflection on his ability to take legislation through the Dáil when the only way he can reply to legitimate points made in debate is by engaging in personal attacks. It is a sad day for democracy if that is the calibre of the Minister.

The Deputy was the only one who engaged in personal attacks.

I never engaged in any personal attacks on the Minister.

Nor I on the Deputy.

Yes, the Minister did. The staff in Dún Laoghaire are confused. If a worker who has been employed in Dún Laoghaire for 30 or 40 years by the Office of Public Works hears that the Government of the day have got a grandiose notion of transferring responsibility for the Office of Public Works to the Department of the Marine, that worker will be wondering what is to happen to him. Then he hears the same Minister announce the setting up of an interim harbour authority as the first step to the setting up of a harbour authority. He further scratches his head and is at this point about to pull his hair out, worrying what his position will be under the harbour authority.

Deputy Gilmore's amendment and the points I am making are vitally important from the point of view of the ordinary staff who have been working for years in Dún Laoghaire. The Minister should consider the valid points being made on this side of the House and not become so edgy about defending a secret deputation he met. He certainly did not give any notice to me as a Deputy from the constituency that such a deputation was coming to meet him to discuss an interim harbour authority.

What about councillor Elliott?

I learnt of it when the Fianna Fáil Cathaoirleach of Dún Laoghaire Corporation went on radio and announced that the Minister had been in the constituency and that she had walked around the harbour with him. She said he gave her a personal guarantee that within a week the names of the members of the harbour authority would be issued. If the Minister wants to attack me on a personal level I can give back as much as I have to take. This is a political ploy. Employees of Dún Laoghaire harbour, some of whose grandfathers spent their lives there, are pawns in this game. I support Deputy Gilmore, as I hope every representative of this constituency will do. We must see to it that these unfortunate employees are not used as pawns and that when the Minister gets another political idea we will not have another secret meeting which leaves the workers wondering what is happening.

I know what is happening in my constituency because I was present in the maintenance yard of the Office of Public Works which is staffed by employees whose main job is to service Dún Laoghaire harbour. The staff in the maintenance yard were told they were being moved into town; I did not dream that notion. If the Minister says that there was never any intention of moving staff from Dún Laoghaire I invite him to come with me to talk to those who told me they had been notified they were being moved into town. The Minister could also check his files and he will find correspondence from me in which I made appropriate inquiries on behalf of the staff, asking why they were being moved into town.

I stand over every single word I said and if I want to raise a point on these issues on any day of the week I will do so and if I have to go to Limerick to deal with other business as spokesman for Industry and Commerce I will do so without a lecture from anybody. It is just unfortunate that the business was ordered for the day I had the appointment in Limerick.

The Minister said he had issued a letter to the staff in Dún Laoghaire giving all sorts of assurances. However, the Minister did not have the right to issue a letter of that sort to the staff in Dún Laoghaire because, until this Bill is passed, the Department of the Marine have no legal power to issue such a letter to the staff giving them assurances because they have nothing to do with Dún Laoghaire harbour. What validity does the Minister's letter have? At present, the legal statutory power for Dún Laoghaire harbour is vested in the Office of Public Works and will be until the Bill goes through the Houses of the Oireachtas, is signed by the President and becomes law.

Deputy Gilmore's amendment is very important and I congratulate him for tabling it. The Department of the Marine have no function other than an agency function which may have been supplied by the Office of Public Works pending the passing of this legislation, but they have no legal power to give any guarantees to anyone. I do not see how this legislation can be affected by the letter. I do not foresee any massive difficulties arising if this amendment is accepted.

It is stated in the amendment that the terms and conditions of employment of any member of staff employed by the commissioners or by the Minister at Dún Laoghaire harbour shall not, while he is in the employment of the commissioners or of the Minister, be less favourable to him than those prevailing immediately before the transfer of control. How does that in any way affect this legislation apart from giving a proper guarantee to the staff that the Minister is so anxious to satisfy? If the amendment is not accepted it is clear that we are seeing more of the old fashioned, dogmatic approach of the Fianna Fáil Government prior to 1982 and which was not so apparent in the period between 1987-89. At that time I was Opposition spokesman on Justice and the then Minister, Deputy Collins did not shoot down a reasonably good idea because it was not his, he gave me the opportunity of considering it for Report Stage. On a number of occasions he accepted proper amendments and this also is a proper amendment.

The lives of people and their families are at stake and when they hear all this talk about the transfer of responsibility and a new harbour authority they are rightly concerned because they have given their lives to this place. The minimum we can do is to accept Deputy Gilmore's amendment.

I am disappointed that the Minister indicated he would not be accepting the amendment because section 7 adequately covers the provisions made for staff. I am sure the Minister is aware that normally when there is a takeover of a group trade unions make sure that adequate protection is provided for their members. In passing the Bill it is incumbent on Members to ensure that there is protection for the employees at Dún Laoghaire harbour.

We are talking about the protection of jobs; unemployment is rampant, there are serious cutbacks in various areas and people are genuinely fearful that their jobs could be at risk in the future. I accept the point that changing times bring changing practices for employees, and trade unions are quite capable of covering that aspect. However, all public representative have a responsibility to copperfasten the provisions in the Bill to protect the employees. I will not refer to personalities because we are debating the future of people's employment at Dún Laoghaire harbour. It is not a time to make personal attacks on anyone but it is very important to make our points clearly. The Minister said that there was protection in the Bill but, if he is so sure of that, he should not be afraid of the amendment. If he accepted it on Report Stage it would be a good day's work. To a certain extent, Deputy Gilmore's fears are justified and we are trying to allay them. I again ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment. I was very disappointed with the Minister's reaction to it. While he has given an assurance to the House that he had this matter closely examined by legal advisers and that he is happy in relation to the position of the workforce at Dún Laoghaire harbour, I am not convinced by his arguments. I ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude to this amendment and if he is not prepared to accept it now he should at least consider it for Report Stage.

The word "employees" is not mentioned once in the Bill. It is strictly a bureaucratic Bill dealing with the transfer of powers, jurisdiction and functions of one Minister to another. The position of employees is not dealt with and, therefore, Deputy Gilmore must be commended for tabling this amendment. As my colleague Deputy Barrett pointed out, the position in relation to the Minister for the Marine in any negotiations with the employees is literally a casual discussion, rather than one that has a legal bond. The simple reason is that the Department of the Marine — until this Bill has been passed by both Houses — are unable to act legally in consultation with employees. Any discussions that have taken place or any letters exchanged between the Department and employees would not be legally binding if subsequently tested in the courts. That is the reality of the position obtaining. While there may be goodwill on the part of the Minister, there is no strict, legal binding on any communications between the Minister and employees prior to the Bill being passed.

Section 7 needs the extra reinforcement incorporated in Deputy Gilmore's amendment. The Minister would be unwise to ignore its contents since they have merely been lifted from other legislation passed in regard to other transfers from one Government Department to another.

I cannot understand why the Minister should be reluctant to accept the amendment. The reasons the Minister has advanced are not sufficiently sound and do not convince me that the future of the employees of Dún Laoghaire harbour will be vested there. I have no doubt but that their future will be secure within the entirely of the public service but that is entirely different. For people who, throughout the entirety of their working life, have lived and worked in Dún Laoghaire, being brought within the ambit of the overall public service constitutes quite a different ball game. It would appear that is what the Minister has in mind but he has not said so clearly in the House this morning. That is something needing clarification. We want to be assured in no uncertain terms that these people will continue to be employed in Dún Laoghaire. There is nothing in this Bill to give us such assurance and indeed what the Minister has said in the House this morning would suggest quite the contrary. I am afraid, from what the Minister has said already they will form part of the public service but that their future within Dún Laoghaire harbour will not be secure.

For that reason I full support Deputy Gilmore's amendment.

I am sorry that Deputy Seán Barrett should construe as a personal attack on him any remarks I made. There was no such intention on my part. We were having what I considered to be a rational debate on Committee Stage until Deputy Seán Barrett introduced strident notes, calling the whole Bill a nonsense——

I was telling the truth.

——saying that his heart bled for the workers. He then accused me of having some kind of secret meeting with representatives of Dún Laoghaire Borough Council. That amazes me because Dún Laoghaire Borough Council requested at an open, public meeting that I should meet them. The deputation was chosen publicly at a meeting of Dún Laoghaire Borough Council. Deputy Seán Barrett says I met in some kind of secret hole or corner place with these people. I can tell Deputy Seán Barrett that on that deputation was a very articulate, intelligent and positive member of his party, councillor Aine Elliott. I reject the suggestion that I was meeting secretly any deputation from Dún Laoghaire. If Deputy Seán Barrett wants to confirm what I am saying here he can consult his own party councillor, Aine Elliott, on Dún Laoghaire Borough Council.

I want to reiterate that the staff with whom we are dealing in this Bill, now coming into Roinn na Mara, are not being transferred into town. I want to put that clearly on the record no matter what other interpretation is put on it.

With regard to what Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan had to say, if I thought there was even the slightest possibility of an employee's position being endangered I would accept this amendment. My contention — one based on due and careful consideration and on legal advice — is that section 7 adequately covers the position. I would accept the amendment if I thought there was even a scintilla of evidence that the position of the employees could be endangered.

Deputy Taylor-Quinn said that, in the circumstances, she was not convinced of the value of section 7. I want to reiterate that the employees have not expressed any concern to Roinn na Mara. However, as Deputy Taylor-Quinn said, it is true, that as of now, there is no statutory base for what is happening. Indeed, in regard to the positive things already happening in Dún Laoghaire there is no statutory base. It is to give a statutory base to what is happening that this Bill is being taken through these House, a Bill which, incidentally, Deputy Seán Barrett said was a nonsense. Deputy Taylor-Quinn quite rightly knows that there is substance in the Bill. It is a technical Bill but one which gives statutory authority to the transfer. Deputy Taylor-Quinn used the word "reinforcement". By its use she is inferring that section 7 does indicate that contracts, including contracts of work and so on, are adequately safeguarded by the provisions of the section.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 69.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finnucane, Michael.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East).
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies McCartan and Byrne; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with tolls, rates, dues and other charges. I should like the Minister to give an indication of the type of charges he has in mind and the income the Office of Public Works have received from Dún Laoghaire harbour. What amount of money does the Minister anticipate his Department will receive from the harbour?

The section simply seeks to transfer to the Department powers in respect of tolls, rates, dues and other charges given by section 7 of the 1924 Act or my any other enactment. It simply is giving to the Minister for the Marine powers that resided in the Commissioners of Public Works. The tolls, rates and dues are, of course, variable and, as the House will know, a great deal of the revenue for Dún Laoghaire comes from the ferry. In fact a very substantial percentage of the total revenue comes from the ferry service. The powers given in the 1924 Act are to be transferred to me.

Will the Minister say how it came about that his Department increased the charges to small boat owners, particularly those who use the inner harbour area? I am referring to people who have been associated with Dún Laoghaire harbour for years and who operate out of the harbour with their small boats. There are not many people involved but they were using the only facility available to those who are not members of the local yacht clubs. Will the Minister explain how his Department had the authority to increase the charges for those boat owners before the Bill was passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas? Will the Minister give us an assurance that the charges will be reduced for those who are on low incomes and cannot afford to pay them? There is no doubt that the big increase in the charges will mean that people on low income will be forced out of the harbour.

I should like an assurance from the Minister that this section will not be used to increase those charges. There is a fear locally that those who use the harbour facilities, and who cannot afford membership of the local yacht clubs, will be squeezed out. It must be remembered that we are talking about the location selected for the controversial marina proposal that I and the general public in Dún Laoghaire vigorously opposed when it was mooted in early 1988. People are concerned that an attempt is being made to hype up the charges on the boat owners who use that part of the harbour so that they will eventually be squeezed out. If that happens that part of the harbour will be handed over for marina development, as was originally intended.

The section is specific and the Minister, in response to questions by Deputy Barrett, merely quoted the wording of it. Will the Minister give details of the Department's policy in relation to the powers now being vested in him under section 8? The Department must have some idea of the revenue they will raise in tolls, rates, dues and other charges and what they propose using the money for. Is the Minister in a position to tell us the amount of money raised by the Office of Public Works in the last financial year? Were they in a position to cover all expenses involved in the management of the harbour from the revenue they received or did the State incur any expenditure? Will it be the policy of the Department to operate in a similar fashion? Will it be their intention to increase the charges at Dún Laoghaire and to use the revenue for developmenT purposes? Have they any idea of the revenue they require and the use they intend to put that revenue to?

Those who use the harbour should be made aware of the tolls, rates, dues and other charges that are likely to be imposed by the Minister and what use he will make of the revenue. He should tell us if he is likely to increase existing charges and from what date. The Minister should explain why his Department have increased the charges, as referred to by Deputy Gilmore, when they are not legally entitled to do so.

I trust the Minister will reply to the questions I put to him earlier. This is a very important section. I do not like the way the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is looking at me.

I will give the Deputy the benefit of what I was thinking. I was going to suggest that he might ask the Minister whether he wishes to reply to those questions, before he asks another question.

I would like to make a further one or two points. At present the people of Dún Laoghaire and the traders do not know the basis of the charges. The issue was last debated in 1924 and 65 years later no one knows why £X is charged for a service, the basis for the charge and the policy of the Department of the Marine. We do not know what the policy of the Department of the Marine is on cargo coming into Dún Laoghaire harbour, the granting of authority to certain individuals to bring in cargo ships to Dún Laoghaire, the maintenance of the East and, in particular the West, piers. I am sure the Minister is aware of the condition of the West pier, which is nothing short of scandalous and is dangerous for old people. Will the revenue generated by the increased charges be used for the proper maintenance of the piers?

I repeat what I said earlier — and to which the Minister took grave exception — this is nonsense legislation. The planning review group went to a great deal of trouble outlining the potential of Dún Laoghaire harbour, but like many reports, it is gathering dust. The benefit in having a harbour authority with local representation be they the members of Dún Laoghaire Corporation who are elected by the local people, or representatives of the people who use the harbour is that more information would be available to the general public on the Department's policy. We had no way of finding out who decided what with regard to income and expenditure when the harbour was under the control of the Office of Public Works, and that information is still not available now the Department of the Marine have responsibility. Before agreeing to the section, we are entitled to know the basis for the charges, and the use to which this money will be put.

Deputy Gilmore asked what will happen to the individual who brings his boat to the harbour and sails around it. Will he be faced with increased charges? The section provides that the Minister will have power to determine charges, so perhaps the Minister would outline the present level of charges, the basis for these charges, the policy of expenditure on the harbour and whether it is intended to make a profit. Is it envisaged that the income will be greater than expenditure on maintenance?

The average person thinks Dún Laoghaire Corporation are responsible for the appalling condition of the West Pier. People are inclined to contact Deputies and councillors — I am sure they have been in touch with Deputy Gilmore, Deputy Hillery, Deputy Andrews and Deputy Barnes — and ask what they are doing about the West Pier, but we have no answers. If we make inquiries, we can be told it is none of our business as we have no say in the collection or spending of the money. However, we have an opportunity before we pass this section to decide whether we want to transfer power willy nilly without knowing the consequences of transferring those powers. This would not happen if we had a harbour authority because we would have representatives on the harbour authority and we would get regular reports. We would know their future plans and how the proposals would affect existing amenities. It would be open for everybody to see.

I think the Minister is not as silly as one might think. The effects of the Bill are not merely to transfer powers from the Office of Public Works to the Department of the Marine.

I do not think the Minister has the slightest intention of setting up a harbour authority because that would be giving away power. People do not like giving away power. I think the setting up of an interim harbour authority is a sop. The Minister is a highly intelligent man. A highly intelligent man would not come into this House and try to persuade 166 Deputies that it is logical to transfer responsibility from one Department to another if he intended setting up a harbour authority within 18 months to two years. I may be wrong, but this section gives us the opportunity to find out if this is a money making exercise——

You are as cute as a fox.

The Minister is looking for powers in relation to charges, dues, rates, etc., and we want answers to what are legitimate questions on Committee Stage.

This is the most important section of the Bill and will highlight whether or not we will have a harbour authority. Before we rush in and agree to section 8, I would advise Members to think very strongly because we may not have an opportunity to discuss this matter again. We had to wait 65 years to get the opportunity to ask these few questions. We may have to wait until 7.30 p.m., or indeed tomorrow but I will be here to listen to the answers. If I do not get the information, I will use my right to stand up and ask the questions again.

Deputy Barrett appreciates that the section refers to tolls and charges and matters of that type.

I am in order.

I will respond to a number of points raised by Deputies. Deputy Gilmore raised the point that there was not statutory authority for charges already being made. I want to tell the House that everything we have been doing since I January 1989 was as agents of the Commissioners of Public Works, and that is the legal basis upon which we have been proceeding.

Deputy Gilmore also asked about boats for recreational purposes. I do not think anybody who has looked at the actual charges would regard them as exorbitant and out of the reach of somebody who has a boat for recreational purposes.

Deputy Taylor-Quinn asked what the revenue is used for and one of the most important charges on the revenue is to pay the staff. We spent quite a while debating section 7, which copperfastens the rights of the employees. Probably the most important thing for an employee is the wherewithal to pay wages and salaries. That is the most substantial charge on the revenue generated.

Deputy Barrett rightly says that Dún Laoghaire Borough Council are not responsible for the condition of the piers. It is not fair for any citizen to accuse them of neglect. I have been to Dún Laoghaire and I agree that a great deal of development has to take place. I want the House to accept that the thrust of the legislation, although a technical Bill, is to prepare the way for the type of development which was adumbrated by Deputy Barrett in his contribution.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share