I thank you sir, for allowing me to raise the matter in question and I thank the Minister for coming in to take the question, which is to ask the Minister for Communications the steps he proposes to take as a matter of urgency to prevent the threatened indefinite closure from tomorrow of the deep sea section of Dublin port and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Dublin Port Dispute.
This matter was raised on the Adjournment on 30 April and I dealt with it also when I moved the Estimate for my Department on June 13. It is worth while repeating today what I said two weeks ago. The Government decided recently on a financial package for the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The package is comprised of grant assistance, including £3 million in 1985, a State guarantee for borrowings, a requirement for the board to take cost cutting and revenue increasing measures and to dispose of assets.
The State assistance is contingent on the conclusion of negotiations which have been under way for some weeks between Dublin Cargo Handling Limited and the dock labour force. Industrial peace at the port is vital if the port is to prosper. I am confident that these measures will restore Dublin port to viability and revive user confidence. As I said on the Adjournment recently, the Government cannot save Dublin port. That is something that can be achieved only by the parties involved — management and staff.
Sometime ago I met both management and unions and offered them timely advice. Regrettably, the urgency of that advice is being ignored. Therefore, I was most concerned to hear that, notwithstanding the financial help offered by the Government, negotiations between Dublin Cargo Handling Limited and the unions have run into problems. I do not propose commenting further on those problems at this stage because I do not consider that it would be helpful for me to do so.
The situation arising now is much the same as that which arose on 13 June when lay-offs to take effect from 14 June were averted and when Dublin Cargo Handling Limited agreed, at the behest of the Minister for Labour, to withdraw notices. This was after the Labour Court had intervened. The Labour Court had discussions with both sides this week and issued a recommendation on 22 June. My understanding is that the union held a meeting on Sunday last but that members did not vote. Dublin Cargo Handling Limited and the Minister for Labour have urged the union to hold a ballot for members but so far the union have not responded.
I must repeat that the Government cannot save Dublin port. The port can be saved only by those in the port. I urge strongly at this very late stage that the trade union involved organise a ballot of the members. This is something small to ask in the light of securing their own future.
I join with the Minister in expressing the hope that even at this late stage a solution can be found but, as I understand it from what was set out by the Labour Court, all of those conditions laid down as A, B, C, D, E and F would have to be complied with before agreement could be reached. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that the Dublin Port and Docks Board have a long Dublin tradition as far as families are concerned. The difficulty arises because members are being asked to vote out the jobs of members of their own families. There is not that great difference between the redundancies that are necessary and what is considered to be viable by Dublin Cargo Handlers Limited. Can the Minister foresee any prospect of carrying anything above the 120 figure which has been advanced continuously by Dublin Cargo Handlers and which is disputed by the people in the port with a lot of expertise.
Deputy B. Ahern is a person for whom I have a great deal of respect. However, I have to say that, in the run up to today's situation, some weeks ago he gave an interview on radio which undermined completely an agreement signed by both sides. I am referring to the Horgan Dublin Docks Review, in respect of which both sides committed themselves to the figure of 120. Deputy Ahern, in that radio interview and again today, was seeking to intervene and meddle with negotiations that have gone on. Again last week it was agreed by both sides to go to the Labour Court. They have gone to the Labour Court. The Labour Court have come up with a recommendation, a variation on the Horgan recommendation, and all that is asked now is that the matter be put to a ballot. Surely every Member of this House would agree that this is a matter that should be put to a ballot. As I understand it, agreement is very close, or could be achieved very soon, and that what is dividing the parties now is not very great. It is a small thing to ask that a ballot be held in order to secure the future of the port.
The Government, in grave financial difficulties, have come up with money to help in the situation this year, next year and the following year. As I have said repeatedly, it is not Deputy B. Ahern, myself or the Government who can save the situation. It is the people in the port themselves. I want to emphasise that I believe there is a very good future for Dublin port provided there is long term peace, and doubts about the reliability of service in the port and the loss of business caused thereby are ended. Then I believe there would be a resumed growth of business in the port which, more than anything that I or anybody else may say in this House, will secure its future.
I agree with the Minister. I argued that money should be put up for redundancy. Therefore I support that proposal, in order to render Dublin port viable, as it should be, because other ports are benefiting from its loss of trade. We all accept that good industrial relations are vital to the success of the port and there appears now to exist a very small difference. I am endeavouring to express a viewpoint on what is blocking final agreement on this deal, which is that those people who become redundant tomorrow, who have accepted redundancy arrangements, will be asked to vote for other people losing their jobs, people who will not be in the same strong position as they are. In other words, the people who are accepting redundancy will be joining those people who know their jobs are secure.
If we take it that there are 120 who know their jobs are secure, that 50 or 60 have accepted redundancy, that amounts to 180. There are 30 others who will be voting, and the result of the ballot will be 180 against 30. As the Minister knows, because of the tradition in the port, one would be asking father to vote against son and brother to vote against brother, which does not seem to be a very good idea. To avoid placing people in that position I am asking that that small stumbling block be removed. We all want Dublin port to continue to be viable, to prevent a situation arising in which, on Monday morning next, people begin picketing, and we are into another long contentious debate.
I have to deprecate the stance being taken by Deputy B. Ahern because it is extremely dangerous ——
It is not a stance. I am expressing a point of disagreement.
I was shadow Minister for Labour in this House for four years between 1977 and 1981, the position now held by Deputy B. Ahern. I never sough to perform the role of the Labour Court, especially across the floor of the House. It is not for this House to undermine the industrial relations machinery put there by the State. Certainly it is not for this House to say that a ballot should not be held of members affected. Of course, a ballot should be held. That is the remaining problem. If the ballot is in favour of the Labour Court recommendation I believe the problem will have been solved. Again I urge, as has the Minister for Labour, that the ballot be held and I do not think it unreasonable to expect this House to join us in that endeavour.
As I think the Minister and his officials are aware, the argument is not whether there is a ballot but rather who votes. That is what constitutes the obstacle.
It is not for us in this House to decide these questions. They are industrial relations questions which should be dealt with by those who are industrial relations practitioners. It is not at all helpful for Deputies in this House to seek to perform the work of the unions and of the Labour Court.
I note that management and workers have been mentioned, but there has been no mention of the customers. Is the Minister aware that several shipping and forwarding companies have been in communication with my office today, in a state of total chaos, because they do not know what arrangements to make for shipping at present? Would the Minister do whatever he can to clarify this situation for the customers, who are paying for management and labour anyway, so that the position may be clarified for them?
I take the point Deputy Wilson has made. Indeed those people who used the port of Dublin over the years have been in a state of torment and decline for a long time. It is an effort to bring a conclusion to that torment and decline that we are seeking agreement. It is worth recalling again the recent history. It was agreed by both sides to enter into a Dock Review Group under the chairmanship of Mr. John Horgan of the Labour Court. They came up with a joint agreed report, which each side signed and which, among other things, committed them to a figure of 120 dockers to remain. That agreement has now been reneged on. That matter has been referred to the Labour Court again. The Labour Court have come up with a slight moderation of that agreement in favour of the dockers. In order to end this torment, all we are now asking is that a ballot be held, which is not an unreasonable request. The Labour Court have also increased somewhat the redundancy money available. Therefore, what the Labour Court have decided is even more favourable to the dockers than the Horgan recommendation. I am joining the Minister for Labour and the Dublin Port and Docks Board in asking that a ballot take place.
Might I ask the Minister if his colleague, the Minister for Labour, would set out what he had said in his last paragraph directly for the Marine Port and General Workers Union. If the conditions and terms were set out by the Minister, stating that extra finance is available to those people who lost five or six weeks' employment I believe the problem could be resolved. I do not want to be argumentative in any way. I believe that if what is at stake was clearly stated, it would be accepted.
The unions concerned are fully aware of the Labour Court recommendation. It is a matter for them to put it to their members and that is all we are asking. The History of Dublin port industrial relations has been shocking. In the main that has been the cause of decline of Dublin port. People have been cutting their own throats for far too long. We are endeavouring to prevent them doing that in order to secure the future of at least some of them and to adequately compensate those who have been made redundant. With very limited funds available to the Exchequer a very generous provision has been made. To date the Exchequer had no liability for Dublin port. It never happened before that Dublin port received assistance from the Exchequer. We have made that provision in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. We are asking reasonably that a ballot take place. I would urge that all Members of this House agree with that and not seek to interject themselves into the negotiating process.