Vol. 405 No. 4
20 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for the Marine if he will outline the response he received from Sealink following his Department's representations to ensure a continuation of lo-lo operations at the Sealink terminal in Dublin Port.
39 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for the Marine if his attention has been drawn to the detrimental effects on exporters of the decision by Sealink to cease operations at their container handling facilities in Dublin Port; and the steps he proposes to take to try to ensure ongoing use of these facilities.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 20 and 39 together.
In answer to a similar question raised on the Adjournment on 6 February I indicated that senior officials of my Department had been in continuous contact with Dublin Port and Sealink since the Sealink announcement. Further discussions have taken place between representatives of Sealink, who provide the container handling facilities, Railfreight distribution, who provide the actual service, Dublin Port and officials of my Department. I expect that these contacts will continue to take place with the relevant interested parties until the issues raised by the Sealink announcement have been satisfactorily resolved. The Deputies will, of course, appreciate that I cannot divulge the exact contents of these discussions involving as they do negotiations between competing commercial concerns.
As Minister with responsibility for access transport as far as ports are concerned, I am very concerned at the possibility that a lo-lo facility capable of handling 500,000 tonnes of unitised cargo annually would cease operations. I would like to repeat the assurance given by me to this House already that I will do my utmost to facilitate a continuation of lo-lo operations at the Sealink terminal in Dublin Port, whether they are carried on by Sealink, or by another operator. In this regard I have made my concern known to Sealink who have indicated a willingness to facilitate this objective and are in active discussions with Dublin Port concerning their lease.
Will the Minister accept that this is the only load on-load off facility between Dublin and Britain, which is of vital strategic importance to Irish importers and exporters? As the Minister said, it involves 500,000 tonnes of cargo per year and £1 million in revenue to Dublin Port; 50 jobs are involved. Is the Minister aware that, when the information became available that this business would transfer to Belfast, Mr. John Needham, the Minister of State for Trade in the North, expressed great pleasure at this amount of business coming to Belfast? He took a personal interest in it and visited the terminal there. Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will show an equal interest and perhaps visit the facility in Dublin Port? Will he take a personal role in the issue and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion because, I am sure if he does——
The Deputy's questions are over-long.
——he will be successful in regard to this issue.
I fully accept what the Deputy said in regard to how vital this lo-lo service is. All we have to do is reflect on the 500,000 tonnes which are handled at the port. I also accept the importance of the preservation of the 50 jobs. I do not know anything about the activities of Mr. Needham — past or present — but I have no doubt that I will be able to match them, whatever they may be. I visited the facility in Dublin Port and I told my Department to facilitate the ongoing discussions about the Sealink operation there and its replacement.
Will the Minister accept the longer a decison is put off, that more traffic will drift to Belfast? Will he also agree that this arbitrary decision taken by Sealink has serious repercussions for Irish trade? This happened without prior consultation with the Minister's Department or with Dublin Port. This is unacceptable in view of the fact that the Government provide Sealink with terminal facilities on an ongoing basis for their freight and passenger service at Dún Laoghaire.
I agree that there was not any consultation because I got the press release on 24 January, the day the announcement was made. The problem was between Sealink and Railfreight Distribution, a subsidiary of British Rail. Railfreight Distribution told them they were not continuing the business with Sealink. I must put something in place of Sealink to get the facility which Sealink had in business again, no matter who is operating it.
In view of the expanding and retention of Sealink facilities here will the Minister say whether he received the report from the interim Dún Laoghaire Harbour Authority? If so, will he act urgently on it because a tremendous amount of Sealink activity here — not just in Dún Laoghaire — is dependent on it?
That has nothing to do with the Dublin Port report. I did not get the report from the interim harbour authority yet but, as I told the House already — and put on record in many places — the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead Sealink traffic is of major importance.
A final question from Deputy Doyle.
Is the Minister aware that Sealink have sought a renewal of the terminal lease at the port? In doing so they appear to be adopting a dog in the manger attitude in trying to keep competitors out even though they want to close the link themselves.
I do not want to go into too much detail but there may be certain legal rights adhering to the original agreement which Sealink had. However, I hope to resolve the difficulties to the advantage of Dublin Port.
As soon as possible?
Yes:
That disposes of questions for today.
