On the adjournment of the House Deputy Ahern has been given permission to raise the imminent closure of Dublin port and Deputy De Rossa has been given permission to raise the same matter.
Adjournment Debate. - Dublin Port Problem.
A Cheann Comhairle, thank you for allowing me to raise this matter. I will share my time with Deputy Brady and Deputy De Rossa. I put down this question to ask the Minister for Communications to outline the present position relating to Dublin port and its subsidiary Dublin Cargo Handling in view of the danger of closure and if he would give an assurance that its future will be secured. For a number of months there has been uncertainty about the position of the port and about what exactly will happen to Dublin Cargo Handling. It is stated in the Horgan report that there were major management problems and that the future was at risk if there were not major changes. The Minister confirmed that he was looking at the problem and made it quite clear that there was no further money for Dublin port and docks.
A few weeks ago there were a number of fairly sound rumours to the effect that the Minister had changed his mind in some way and that there was finance available for the port. Over the past few days the Minister met the people concerned in the port and the unanimous opinion of those people is that there is a danger that the port could close this week, that the Minister sees no possibility of picking up the debts and will not put in any further money. I gather that at one stage he said he would listen to suggestions but the unanimous view of the people he met is that there will be no action and that while his colleagues, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Labour, have been discussing the position with him, a final decision will be made at a Cabinet meeting on Thursday morning. The unanimous view of the people the Minister met so urgently, senior trade union people and people who have worked for their entire lives in the port, is that there is no future for the port.
I ask the Minister to put an end to the uncertainty and to give a clear indication of what the position is, where the negotiations stand and whether he is or is not in a position to make extra finance available. The arguments are straightforward and are well known to the Minister. Dublin port has been the premier port for generations. It ran into management and other difficulties. It has had industrial difficulties. Nobody is disputing that. The Marine Port and General Workers Union have tried over a long number of months to get industrial peace in the port. With Dublin Cargo Handlers they tried to come to some agreement on working rosters, flexibility and redundancies. They have conceded as much as workers can possibly concede. They stated that they will not concede on the right to strike, but they want a long period of industrial peace. They have worked on a week on week off basis. The numbers working in the port now are down to about 120. This number is sufficient to deal with only one ship at a time.
That number is inaccurate.
There are 120 working at any one time. They are losing business to other ports. Their charges are far too high. The other ports on the eastern coast are picking up the business. Both sides claim that there are major management problems and worker problems. There is an obligation on the Minister to put an end to the uncertainty and try to bring both sides together, rather than holding the stick over their heads and saying no further finance is available and that a major port can close down despite the sacrifices made by the workforce. The contracts and the work being lost to the port cannot be picked up again. People who traditionally used Dublin will go elsewhere, to Wexford or to the North.
The Minister said he would like to see a solution to the problem, but he has done absolutely nothing to try to resolve it. People tend to say that the workforce in the Port and Docks Board are involved in industrial strife all the time. They have not received the 24th wage round which was due on 7 March 1984. They received nothing under the 25th round. They have been on short working time for approximately 18 months. They are now in the final stage of pay-related benefit. A number of them are now on medical cards even though they are meant to be fully employed. That shows the kind of money they had earned in the past 18 months.
At the Dublin Chamber of Commerce the Minister said he was prepared to do everything possible to help the Dublin Port and Docks Board to resolve their problems but there was a limit to the assistance he could give. It is generally felt that that statement led to much of the uncertainty and led to people pulling out of Dublin port and going elsewhere. It also caused the unhappiness in the port at present. The meetings in recent days have substantiated the fears of the workforce.
Will the Minister follow the Horgan report? Will he ask the board to resign? Will he set up a commission? Will he abolish Dublin Cargo Handlers? Will he allow Dublin port, which has been there for generations serving the entire city and giving jobs in large parts of the inner city, to close on the basis that £8 million is not available? I would prefer if the Minister could have spoken first and I could have answered him. At least tonight we will hear what is happening. What is at stake is £8 million. I am sure everyone will agree that £8 million would not break the Government in view of the fact that probably 600 to 700 jobs are directly or indirectly involved.
It is not just a matter of the dockers or the stevedores. It is the entire workforce. They do not know where they stand. While the Minister met one section the remaining sections feel they are being left out. They will have no jobs if there are no ships coming into the port. I ask the Minister to clear up this uncertainty and I maintain my right in the next day or two, after I hear what the Minister has to say, to follow up on the meetings I know are taking place tonight and tomorrow. The Minister waited for a number of months after he got the Horgan report to say anything about this matter. I will be glad if the Minister makes a clear statement tonight so that we can follow some definite line in regard to the future of Dublin port.
I will be brief. I should like to endorse everything Deputy Ahern has said. It is a great pity that the Horgan report, which was published during last year and went into great detail, has been lying on the shelves in Government Departments since then gathering dust. It was very evident from that report that urgent and emergency action was required as far as Dublin port is concerned. We all know that there have been industrial problems there for a number of years. Unfortunately, these problems have accelerated since the new company, Dublin Cargo Handling Limited, were formed. It must be remembered that when that company were formed in 1982, international recession was rampant. Indeed, at that time trade into Dublin port had been reduced by some 15 to 18 per cent. One can assume that the management decision then to set up DCH was a disastrous one. Unfortunately, I was a member of the board at the time and the role of members of the board representing local authorities — my role — was purely one of rubber stamping ministerial decisions. That disastrous situation should not have been allowed to continue for any great length of time.
All of this was made very evident in the Horgan report. It is a great pity that the Minister did not act more swiftly in taking some action along the lines proposed in that report. When DCH were formed they purchased debts in the region of £4.8 million and in order to take over 100 per cent holding of the company 18 months later they subsequently incurred additional debts — somewhere in the region of almost £2 million. This was at a time when the company were losing something in the region of £250,000 per month. What sense does that type of activity make? No board, company or management could be condoned for such behaviour. In addition, we had very bad industrial relations, running battles day in, day out, between management and workers.
We all know and accept that dockers all over the world are rather sensitive types of people. They need extra special handling. Unfortunately, that has not been evident in Dublin port for the past number of years. Rather than conciliatory measures and talks at that time, a dictatorial and doctrinaire approach was adopted by management towards the workers. That is one of the sad reasons for the present situation. Apart from the losses being incurred by the port at that time, further losses continued because national confidence in Dublin port was totally lost. As a result, business has been transferred on a massive scale to smaller ports around the country which have far fewer facilities than Dublin but provide more stability as far as importers and exporters are concerned. This lack of stability is one of the weaknesses which has existed in Dublin port for some time. It has been claimed that Dublin port is in its present situation because of very serious and gross mismanagement.
The Horgan report has no axe to grind with anybody. It made this very clear and called on the board to resign and on the Minister to dismantle that board and appoint a commission to run the port until such time as more positive and definite arrangements were made for its future. At present, the workers understand that they may have only a few days of employment left in Dublin port. That is a very serious situation for 240 workers.
The Deputy has eight minutes left.
They are already on one week on and one week off. I shall conclude because Deputy De Rossa wants to contribute. In effect, there are 120 workers employed in the port. As Deputy Ahern pointed out, they have not had any increase since 1984 and they are more than anxious to co-operate in every possible way with management to give greater assurance that Dublin port will continue into the future. The Minister will know, being a Dublin man, that it is very important that Dublin port, which has played such a prominent part in trade here, should continue because Dublin is ideally situated geographically for business of that nature. I call on the Minister here tonight to take immediate action to get Dublin port and DCH out of these grievious financial difficulties and ensure that the jobs of the workers will not be destroyed this week.
It is fairly clear to everyone concerned, and must also be clear to the Minister and the Government, that an emergency exists in Dublin port which requires immediate and bold action by the Minister if a shut down of the port is to be avoided. This is not a situation of which the Minister or the Government can claim to have been unaware, or to have been kept in the dark about, as they claimed about Irish Shipping. The port has been in trouble for very many years, as far back as the early seventies. Dublin Cargo Handling Limited were set up to try to rationalise the stevedore situation in the port, unfortunately with disastrous results. They have not carried out the revitalisation of the port, for which they were established. I agree with the Horgan report that this was due in large measure to under-capitalisation and management incompetence. There is obviously a need for immediate action.
The Horgan report, commissioned last August, reported, I believe, in October and made very clear and unambiguous recommendations to the Minister for Labour and urged that these be pressed with his colleagues in Government for immediate action if a disaster were to be avoided. Unfortunately, it would appear that that report and its recommendations have lain dormant and have remained since then on the Minister's desk and, presumably, with the respective people involved in the port.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the situation of Dublin Port and Docks Board and Dublin Cargo Handling would realise that loans to the Dublin Port and Docks Board are not the answer to the problem of Dublin port. They are not capable at present of servicing even their existing debts, never mind additional debts. The Government must take on the responsibility, not only to the workers, directly involved in the handling of cargo, important as they are, but because the port that we are talking about is the port of the capital city of this State. The Government have a responsibility to the people of this State to ensure that that port remains open for exports and imports and to ensure that a wide range of jobs, not just those in the port, are protected and are not endangered.
There is a risk that the Government may avoid some of the recommendations of the Horgan report because they are opposing a semi-State company to replace Dublin Port and Docks Board. It would be bad if the potential of the port were sacrificed because of the private enterprise bias which the Government obviously pursue. It would also be a mistake to sacrifice the very important resources, in terms of land and so forth, under the control of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. It would be unfortunate if those resources were squandered for some short term financial gain — and I am speaking specifically about the site behind the Custom House. It would not be an answer either to the development of the port or the protection and maintaining of it as a viable cargo handling resource simply to sell off the resources of the port. There is more involved than simply keeping the port open. There is the question of developing it as a location for industrial development. It is important that that aspect be kept in mind.
The Deputy has two minutes.
The workers have made clear to the Minister and to us here that they are ready and willing to make very great sacrifices to ensure that the port is kept open. It is now up to the Minister and the Government to take immediate action to ensure that that is done.
The Minister for Communications to reply.
Dublin Cargo Handling Limited are in a very difficult situation. The company are wholly owned by Dublin Port and Docks Board which have funded DCH and guaranteed borrowings by the company. On 8 March I announced a package of measures approved by the Government to assist the board to overcome their problems but the board have recently informed me of difficulties which they have encountered in implementing those measures. I am now examining the position as a matter of urgency.
It should be clearly understood why Dublin port is in difficulties. Apart from problems arising from the recession and changes in trade patterns the port has been losing business because users have lost confidence in the ability of the port to guarantee efficient and reliable service. The unfortunate record of interruptions and stoppages in recent years, coupled with unwarranted manning levels and other restrictive practices, has given Dublin port an unenviable reputation which has led to diversion of traffic to other ports. Over 20,000 man-days have been lost in the past few years through stoppages, and I raise the question whether today's half-day stoppage and the publicity that will inevitably follow it is the kind of action that will enhance the future of the port and restore the confidence of users and potential users.
I attach much importance to Dublin port. I believe it can overcome its difficulties, but neither I nor the Government can save the port. The future of the port lies in the hands of those directly involved, both at employer and worker level. It is important that those whose future jobs depend on the port demonstrate their commitment by providing the stability and continuity of service that is necessary. The imperative, the infrastructure and the potential, is there. What is needed is confidence, but no measures that I or the Government can take can provide that.
If the workforce are prepared to demonstrate their faith in the future by agreeing to more rational manning and work practices and by ensuring a prolonged period of industrial peace, then I believe confidence will be restored and trade will return. If that stability is provided, I believe the circumstances will then exist that will justify a financial package to enable Dublin port to continue.
That is more redundancies.
The remedy is in the hands of those directly concerned. Both sides know the time scale available to them. I shall deal now with some of the points raised by Opposition speakers. Deputy Ahern said that nothing had been done or said for two months and then he went on to quote what I said on 1 March at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. He did not quote my statement of 8 March in which I announced the financial rescue package for the port but as I have said, that has not worked. In his interjection just now Deputy Brady said that the result would be more redundancies. However, in his own contribution he spoke about the Horgan report and the implementation of that report. This shows he has not read the Horgan report properly because that report spoke precisely about redundancies. A very serious situation exists. The Opposition recklessly came into this House today and spoke about bankruptcy and insolvency——
I never mentioned those words.
Deputy Haughey spoke about bankruptcy and insolvency — it is on the record of this House — and that was quoted in every news bulletin since he spoke. A responsible Opposition would not do that if they thought there was any doubt about the matter.
I remember the Deputy when he was over here.
It is the kind of thing they should have checked privately with the Government. Claims of that kind from so important a person as the Leader of the Opposition could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What is the position?
In the past month or so there were questions tabled in this House on the matter by Deputy Brady and Deputy Haughey asking supplementary questions in regard to them. He sought from me an assurance that I would allow no further developments in Dublin port. He asked me then to give an assurance that there would be no further land reclamation and so on——
That is an untruth.
It is not an untruth. The official record can be checked.
The Minister does not know what the truth means.
That is in connection with Dublin bay, not Dublin port.
I say to Deputy Fitzgerald that it is disorderly to allege that a person does not know what the truth means and I ask the Deputy to withdraw his remark.
The Minister is not telling the truth.
Deputy Fitzgerald must withdraw his remark. We cannot conduct the business of the House in this way.
All I can say is that I believe that on other occasions statements made by the Minister were untrue.
That is an allegation that a person is lying. We cannot conduct the business of this House on that basis. It is not helpful.
I withdraw the remark so that the business of the House can continue.
On a point of order, the Minister has deliberately misquoted what I said some months ago. I spoke about Dublin bay, not Dublin port.
What is the difference?
In relation to the remark made by Deputy Fitzgerald, I wish to say that I have never told an untruth on any occasion in this House or in public life and I can stand over that. The Opposition are now trying to distinguish between Dublin bay and Dublin port but the questions were about the development by the Dublin Port and Docks Board of gas caverns and land reclamation. Moreover, the problems at the port have developed as a result of the infamous deal done by Deputy Haughey and Deputy Gregory——
That is a lot of nonsense.
That led directly to this problem——
Is that the best the Minister can do?
The hypocrisy and irresponsibility of the Opposition today in dealing with this very grave problem is even worse than might have been expected from them given their record.
On a point of order, is the Minister alleging we have not the right to ask questions about an important and urgent matter?
That is not a point of order.
Where is the hypocrisy in asking questions about the protection of 700 jobs?
That is not a point of order.
I repeat that the salvation of Dublin port is possible but it is in the hands of those directly concerned and not in my hands.
The Minister is reneging on his responsibilities.
If they come up with the crucial element for the salvation of the port, which is prolonged industrial peace at the numbers mentioned in the Horgan report, I believe a financial package can be arranged to save the port.
The Minister said all sides knew the timescale. Will he let the House know the timescale?
I have already replied to the debate and I think it would be breaking precedent if I answered further questions.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 May 1985.