asked the Minister for Transport if he is aware that the Dublin Port and Docks Board are failing in their statutory obligations to maintain and improve Balbriggan and Skerries harbours; and the action he intends to take to remedy the situation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Dublin Harbours.
4.
It is the policy of the Dublin Port and Docks Board that expenditure on the Balbriggan and Skerries harbours should be related to revenue from users. There has been no commercial traffic at either harbour for the past 20 years — the only users have been fishing vessels and pleasure boats — and the Port and Docks Board consider that it is anomalous that they should be responsible for maintaining these harbours in the absence of such traffic. It is my view that it would be unreasonable to expect the Port and Docks Board to incur major expenditure on works at either of the two harbours in the absence of commercial traffic and particularly since there is no prospect of any return on the investment.
My Department are pursuing with the various interested parties, including Dublin County Council and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, the possibility of sharing the cost of urgent remedial works required at Balbriggan Harbour and I am hopeful of a satisfactory outcome in this case. I understand that the question of the provision of improved facilities for fishing vessels at Skerries harbour is at present under consideration in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
The question refers to a statutory obligation of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, so it is not a matter for decision by the board whether they will or will not or whether they like to or do not; it is a statutory obligation on them to maintain and improve these harbours. Balbriggan, if I may speak about it first, is in a disgraceful condition. We have a fishing fleet there——
The Deputy did not give me notice that he would talk about something, in other words, make a speech. That is not in order.
I do not intend to make a speech. The Minister's reply was quite extensive, though lacking in information. The Minister is attempting to say that improvements will only be related to commercial use. I suggest to the Minister that the board's statutory obligation is to maintain and to improve these harbours, and they are not doing that. Balbriggan harbour is in a disgraceful condition without even basic amenities for the fishing fleet — not even for the existing fleet, not to talk about an extended fleet. For example, it needs to be dredged, it needs lighting, water and other facilities.
I am not sure the Deputy has asked a question. There is a statutory obligation on the Dublin Port and Docks Board which sets out that in accordance with the provisions of section 47 of the Harbours Act, 1946, the Dublin Port and Docks Board are responsible for maintenance of Balbriggan and Skerries harbours. Section 186 (1) (d) provides that all money received by the board shall be expendable in regard to Dublin, Skerries and Balbriggan harbours. That is the extent of the statutory obligation. The Deputy will have to agree that it is unreasonable to expect the board to expend money on harbours which are not commercially used. Attempts have been made to have Dublin County Council take over responsibility for the two harbours but the council have not given a decision on the matter. There has been a suggestion that the council might make some grant aid available if the board had some plans. I understand the Department of Fisheries and Forestry are considering this matter and that a decision will be announced in the near future. I hope that if repairs could be arranged on such a basis Dublin County Council would take over future responsibility for the two harbours. I should like to add that the policy I am talking about today is precisely the same as my predecessor, Deputy Reynolds, announced by letter to the Deputy in June 1982.
If nothing else, the Minister has read his brief, but he is not adding much to the brief. As the Minister knows, there was controversy in regard to the Custom House site. Dublin Port and Docks Board seem to operate on a profit motive only, which has nothing to do with their obligation——
The Deputy will have to frame his speech in the form of a question.
The board have a statutory obligation in regard to the Skerries harbour, to the extension of that harbour, but they are not meeting their obligation to extend the harbour for the fishing fleet. The same applies to Balbriggan. The Minister will not get away with handing over his obligations to Dublin County Council.
The Deputy will have to ask a question.
Dublin County Council have not been found wanting in making money available for projects in respect of which Dublin Port and Docks Board would be prepared to share. Will the Minister agree to instruct the board to meet their obligations under the Act and force them to spend the money on these two harbours?
Dublin Port and Docks Board are an independent body with a representative board and I am not in a position to direct them to do anything. I would remind the Deputy that the board also have a statutory obligation to balance their books. It would be very wrong of me or anybody else to impose non-commercial obligations on them. The Deputy in his supplementary question said categorically that the Port and Docks Board has responsibility to make provision for the Skerries fleet. That is not the case. I understand that the Skerries fleet are a fishing fleet and the Port and Docks Board have not any responsibility for fishing whatsoever. Their responsibility is purely to commercial shipping.
A commercial fleet can be a fishing fleet as well.
A question please, Deputy. That is not the way Question Time operates. The Deputy asks questions and the Minister answers them.
I ask questions and when the Minister is supposed to reply to them he does not. While the Minister cannot instruct the Port and Docks Board, since they are supposedly an independent board, is he aware of the potential of these harbours for fishing purposes? In the light of the commercial viability of these harbours for fishing purposes can the Minister say if the Port and Docks Board will meet their statutory obligations and carry out even basic maintenance on the harbour which they have refused to do? They are too interested in extending out and polluting Dublin Bay. They are not interested in maintaining and improving Skerries Harbour.
Even Deputy Fitzgerald does not approve of that.
Even the Minister for the Public Service, I have no doubt, would not agree with the reply of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs gave earlier on. I will be very interested to hear the reply of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with regard to the Skerries fishing fleet, which are not commercial according to him.
I do not want to say anything that would cause Deputy Burke to have a seizure.
That will not happen. I will be a long time here after the Minister.
There have been a lot of representations from my colleague the Minister for the Public Service, as there were from Deputy Burke, when he was Minister for the Environment, to his colleague.
(Interruptions.)
I have tried to steer the Deputy in the direction of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, who are responsible for those harbours.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is responsible.
Question No. 5.
(Interruptions.)
As a member of Dublin County Council Deputy Shatter should be well aware of the concern of his colleagues in that matter.
This may be relevant to Dublin County Council. Perhaps the Deputies should bring it there.
The county council were brought in by the Minister.
I am calling Question No. 5.
Can I take it from the reply given by the Minister that he will not spend a bob on Skerries or Balbriggan?
(Interruptions.)