I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
State Guarantees Act, 1954 (Amendment of Schedule) Order, 1985
a copy of which Order in draft has been laid before the House.
Private Members' Business. - State Guarantees Act, 1954 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1985: Motion.
Order, please.
I cannot hear the Minister.
Order, please.
This resolution arises as part of a series of measures needed for the financial restructuring of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which is now virtually complete——
I would ask Deputies who are not interested in the debate now taking place, to leave the House quietly.
——and which is part of the rescue package for the board decided on by the Government earlier this year. The Minister recently dealt with this matter in some detail in the course of a debate during Private Members' time but, in presenting this proposal to the House, I feel it will be useful to recall briefly some of the events which gave rise to the need for action by the Government in relation to the port of Dublin.
Dublin port has been adversely affected by a number a factors over the past few years, such as the common plague of the recession and a drop in the demand for oil due largely to increased usage of natural gas. These factors alone would have led to a significant deterioration in the financial performance of the Port and Docks Board. On top of that, as we all know, the port has had to contend with the fruits of the board's decision to become directly involved in stevedoring through the establishment of Dublin Cargo Handling Limited. The results of this decision so fundamentally affected the financial well-being of the Port and Docks Board as to call into question the board's future viability.
The disputes which followed the establishment of Dublin Cargo Handling Ltd., including the blockading of the port by one section of the workforce, represented a sad chapter indeed in the long and distinguished history of Dublin port. Happily, that chapter is now coming to an end thanks to the persistent efforts of those truly concerned with the welfare of the port. As the Minister has said on a number of occasions in the past, a viable successful Dublin port can only be achieved if everybody plays his part.
The Government have consistently shown a willingness to play their part and continue to do so. In order to assist the Port and Docks Board, the Government approved a package of measures designed to restore the port to financial viability last March.
The board later advised of difficulties they had encountered in implementing the measures. Following a review of the position, the Government agreed in May on a revised financial package for the board comprised of: Exchequer grant assistance of £3 million in each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987; a state guarantee of borrowing by the Port and Docks Board of up to £7 million; a requirement that the board would take the necessary steps to resolve their financial problems by cutting costs, increasing revenue and disposing of assets. The State assistance was contingent on the conclusion of negotiations between Dublin Cargo Handling Ltd. and the dock labour force.
I am pleased to report that the major elements of the rescue package have now fallen into place. Negotiations have been successfully concluded with the dock labour force and the 1985 State grant of £3 million has been paid in full. The board are taking steps to rectify their financial situation by disposing of assets and increasing revenue. These are all essential components to the restoration of viability at Dublin port. The onus is on those who oppose increased charges to show how their approach would improve the prospects of viability.
Taking into account direct grants, loan guarantees and direct loans, the Government have either provided or committed financial assistance in the amount of £21.5 million including local loans funds borrowing of £5.5 million to the board over the past 12 months. I am glad to note that the banks have also carried out their role in a responsible manner by making funds available and continuing to support the board. As regards operations at the port, it is up to those directly involved, both management and workers, to show that they have the skill and determination to make it work.
The resolution which is now before the House, if approved, will facilitate the provision of a State guarantee of up to £7 million of the board's borrowings and will complete the Government's part of the rescue package for the board. The guarantee necessitates an appropriate amendment to the Schedule to the State Guarantees Act, 1954. It is specifically in this context that this resolution arises. The amendment has already been approved by the Seanad and the approval of the Dáil is necessary in order to complete legal formalities in respect of the guarantee.
I should point out that a revised borrowing package has recently been agreed between the Port and Docks Board and its bankers. The new borrowing arrangements are conditional on the State guarantee being in place not later than the end of this year. There is, therefore, an obvious urgency about the matter.
I recommend the resolution to the House.
I was a little disappointed that the Minister did not, when putting this resolution under the State Guarantees Act to the House, avail of the opportunity of expanding a little more, not merely on the development of the port itself but also on what is very dear to the heart of this side of the House, the development of the port vicinity, the subject matter of a Private Members' Motion before the House in the very recent past.
I thought we might have had from the Minister a resume of the Government's decisions or the Minister's policy with regard to the conclusions and principal recommendations of the Horgan report. I know that the labour difficulties, the union difficulties, have been at least partly resolved. Some words that the Minister used when speaking in the Seanad would indicate that he is not wholly satisfied that those problems have been resolved permanently. Indeed a letter I received from him indicated that the numbers of workers in the docks are not the ones that were "ambitioned"— to use a horrible word — by the Horgan report. The Horgan report, at page 41, starts with regard to the position of the Dublin port and the deep sea section, makes a financial review, talks of future labour requirements and indicates that, in the opinion of the Horgan Committee, 120 would be the optimum number. That has not been achieved. I presume that the decision to employ more is in keeping with the general thrust of making the deep sea port a paying commercial proposition.
I was wondering what had happened the proposals with regard to the Dublin Port and Docks Board. One of the fundamental recommendations as far as the board are concerned was that a new port authority should be established to replace the Dublin Port and Docks Board, that port authority should comprise eight members only and that they should be paid in line with rates for directors of other semi-State boards. An important recommendation, one which I had accepted as Minister for Transport with regard to the Dublin Transport Authority, was that those members should be chosen who had not a direct vested interest in any decision of the authority, that they should be chosen solely on the basis of their expertise in that area. Perhaps the Minister of State, in replying, would indicate what is the present thinking of the Government and Minister on that point. Horgan did say that there was no implication that the present or past members of the Dublin Port and Docks Board had failed to act responsibly in the performance of their duties. From my study of that situation I believe that to be true also. As those were fundamental recommendations, and as the recommendations with regard to the Dublin Cargo Handling Limited have already been put into effect, I should like to know what is the thinking of the Minister and the Government in that regard.
I should also like some information on the present debt position of the Port and Docks Board and of Dublin Cargo Handling Limited. In his remarks the Minister said that the first £3 million — the first £3 million of a set of three — has already been paid to the board. To what purpose has this been paid? Has it been paid to reduce the debt which I think stood at £7 million to £9 million earlier this year? The Minister mentioned in the Seanad a £2.5 million Local Loans Fund grant and this £7 million guarantee. Has some of this £3 million been borrowed already on the strength that this resolution was coming before the Houses of the Oireachtas? Was there a letter of comfort or has all that £7 million yet to be borrowed? In the course of his remarks the Minister paid a tribute to the banks. I should like to know when the borrowing has or is to take place and what kind of rates the Dublin Port and Docks Board succeeded in getting for that £7 million.
In the Seanad debate the Minister mentioned all the old reasons why the port had suffered over the last few years. He mentioned the recession, the drop in the processing of oil cargoes in the port as a result — of course very good for our economy — of the use of natural gas. He mentioned the serious difficulties that Dublin Cargo Handling Limited got into as a result of their involvement in the stevedoring side of the business. He mentioned also that the Local Loans Fund was going to be attacked, so to speak, in the interests of the board.
A little more teasing out of the financial situation would be pleasing, but I would like to refer to what the Minister says about the disposal of the assets and the increasing of revenue. I understand that by "increasing of revenue" he means increasing tariffs for the use of the port and that the board or whatever authority or group will replace this board will have to make realistic decisions taking into account competitors etc. in reaching conclusions about the tariff. Dublin's charges have not been out of kilter with charges generally for similar sized ports with similar sized facilities. What is the situation with regard to tariffs now?
The Minister had a double think about the sale and lease back of the port centre. At one stage he indicated publicly that he was prodding the board into selling and leasing back the centre, then he went back on that, did a complete about turn, and said that he did not approve of it, that the conditions were not right for it. I would like to know what the present thinking with regard to that is.
That takes me on to the other aspect of the port area. When discussing a Private Members' motion in this House we had a run through of all the facilities which we hope will be available in that area. This side of the House approved of a plan for the port development, for what Deputy Gregory called the vital 27 acres on the Port and Docks Board site, and the Fianna Fáil Government were committed to the nationalisation of that site and developing it along lines geared to the needs of centre city communities. It was with that purpose in view that Fianna Fáil put the Private Members' motion calling for a detailed plan for the development of the port of Dublin to attract lost business and revitalise the undeveloped dockland area for industrial, commercial, housing and leisure activities.
When bringing before the Seanad what is before this House now the Minister dealt with that aspect of the development of the port, and I am a little disappointed that there was nothing in the speech by the Minister of State in that regard here tonight. To deal with it briefly, there is general agreement that it is a unique site, and I will take the first word that came before the House then which was "industrial". Our hope is that the site belonging to the IDA in Cork near the Ringaskiddy deep water facility will develop for industrial purposes. Nothing could be more appropriate than a strong scheme for industrial development in the port of Dublin. The House would have welcomed some indication in the speech tonight about that objective. Most of what we have heard has been in relation to the port business, which of course is important, and the Minister mentioned the various factors that he and this House in general hope will lead to a very vibrant and vital port of Dublin. The finances and tariffs must be got right. Apparently we are well under way to having the industrial relations side of the port properly developed and rationalised, and I gather that a three year peace plan is in operation in 1985. We could move on from there to the industrial development side which was very much at the heart of our reasoning when in 1982-83 we advocated the revitalisation of the port area.
The second word in the motion was "commercial". Again I do not have to emphasise to this House that it is a more than appropriate place for commercial development. As is well known, we are an export led industrial country; in other words our industries depend greatly on exports and most of the packaging prepared by the IDA to attract industry to this country has had extra incentives inserted in order to encourage exports. Therefore, the industry in the port geared to export is appropriate, and having commercial enterprises in the port is equally appropriate because of the volume of activity which it has developed and the potential which is much more important for development in the future. The Minister gave the volumes for Dublin port in the Green Paper.
It was interesting to note that for the ten years 1970-80 the projected tonnage development was roughly correct although it fell somewhat short of the projection. Therefore, if we are thinking in terms of development of the port for ten years ahead we could allow for a volume development which would be reasonably modest and rational and would take up the little bit of slack from the 1970-80 period. As the Minister said, rightly, during that period there were problems for the port which now, we hope, have been solved, and that should make for development in the volume of trade.
In 1982-83 we emphasised strongly the importance of having housing development in the port area. Apart from anything else, it gives a better environment for all kinds of activities if suitable housing is provided in the area. There are all kinds of suitable housing for such an area. There are flat developments suitable for commercial premises. There are, of course, the beautifully designed houses which Dublin Corporation have already built on City Quay and at Ringsend and over near the Liberties. That type of development, which has been praised and is highly deserving of praise, would also be a great boon to the port of Dublin.
The final words I am picking out are leisure activities. During the course of the debate in Private Members' time on the development of the port I quoted the president of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce who obviously had traversed the area. What impressed him more than anything else was the size of the area and the realisation — I do not recommend that this should happen — that he could put a full 18 hole golf course into the area without it swamping the place.
Is that allowing for slices and hooks?
I dare say that some people on both sides of the river would be at risk, depending on the skill of the people using it. That proposal would be a bit far-fetched but the president of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce used it as an example to indicate the size of the area for development.
The huge success of sports centres, spoirtlanna as they are called in some parts of the country including my own, in recent times has come about because many young people have availed of the facilities in them. A well organised sport and leisure centre for young people, incorporating recreation facilities for old people, would be a great boon to the area. We do not intend to oppose the motion for the application of the State Guarantees Act to an upper limit of £7 million borrowing for the Dublin Port and Docks Board. I would have liked to have heard a more expanded speech by the Minister that would indicate the thinking of the Minister, and the Government, in relation to new structures in the port, whether of the board or the existing board being kept on and to indicate the plans the Minister and the Government have for the general development along the lines I have mentioned. The Opposition support what the Minister is doing and I hope we get some enlightenment on future development.
As a member of the Dublin Port and Docks Board it is appropriate that I should make some comment on the factors which brought about the precarious financial position in which the board now find themselves. The most fundamental matter which concerns the board is the trade of the port and the provision of appropriate facilities to handle that trade. In 1979 trade of the volume of 7.4 million tonnes was taxing the facilities of the port to its limits. New and upgraded facilities were required in order to cater for the needs of the fast growing volumes of trailerised freight, the new mode of transport. These needs were met initially by the provision of the second ro-ro ramp at the B & I freight terminal and the longer term solution was the construction of a new deep water ro-ro berth south and east of the car ferry terminal.
A further growth area was the lo-lo container trade and here the board provided an additional 35 tonne container crane at the south quays. This terminal was again extended in 1982 giving a total of eight hectares for container cargo handling. The already excellent facilities for handling bulk cargo at the south quays was further enhanced by the provision of a second 10 tonne crane in 1981. Heavy capital expenditure was also incurred in rehabilitating some older sections of the port and in reclaiming more land for terminal transit storage. Also included were associated developments including surfacing new and upgraded roadways, ancillary services, plant and equipment and, of course, the new port centre.
Virtually all of the development envisaged in the five year development plan has been completed and in all the board have expended in the region of £18 million on those works. While those developments were in progress the international recession set in. Hand in hand with that oil imports declined to such an extent that the board now handle only 50 per cent of the 3.1 million tonnes of oil products they handled in 1979. Despite this dramatic fall in oil imports and in the oil trade the port held up remarkably well and has had a throughput of 4.5 million tonnes in 1984. Another heartening feature was the fact that exports in 1984 were the highest on record. That was achieved against a background of industrial stoppages and unrest. The ESB policy, while welcome from a national point of view, of switching from oil to natural gas was one of the main reasons for the decline in oil imports through the port of Dublin and has had a big impact on the board's revenue earning capacity for goods dues.
Two most significant decisions taken by the board in recent years concerned the disposal of the 27 acre site at the Custom House docks. As a member of the board I can say that from the time of the intervention of the Gregory deal the fortunes of the Ports and Docks went into decline. That was their collateral for the capital programme in which they had engaged. It was a viable project at that time because the economy was more buoyant, the construction was healthy and there was a demand for such an area. However, the Gregory deal put a stop to all that and brought about the financial demise of the Port and Docks Board.
We were going to pay full market price for it.
I wonder about that. However, that is all a matter for history but the Port and Docks Board paid heavily for it. Stevedoring was also presenting a problem and the deep sea section of the port was in trouble with its work force. The media have covered those matters adequately. A start has been made to right the problems of the deep sea section of the port and the financial position of the board can only improve from here on in. The years ahead will require complete dedication and commitment from all sectors of the workforce. Deep sea dockers have indicated their acceptance of the present difficulties by signing a three year industrial peace agreement. They have endorsed that by providing an excellent outturn of cargo since the resumption of work. That has been favourably commented on by shippers and agents and augurs well for the future of the port. The board are launching a marketing strategy in an effort to recover lost trade and to entice new business to the port. At last week's meeting we heard of several new inquiries about the port.
The facilities offered by Dublin port are second to none on this island and there is not any question about that. This city grew because of the facilities at the port and it behoves all Governments to help those who are endeavouring to make the port a viable proposition. In this respect the Minister for Finance could help us by declaring a free zone warehousing area. That would mean that goods coming into the port for re-export — as a large volume does — would not be liable for VAT at that stage, which would make the port very attractive for many who do not use it at present. This is common practice in many EC countries and I am pleading with the Minister for Finance to give the matter some consideration.
I want to pay tribute to the Minister for Communications who stepped in at an extremely awkward time when there were difficulties with the workforce and the board could not realise money on their only asset and, generally speaking, there was an air of tremendous gloom and doom about the whole port area. I am very happy that the tide has now turned. The last meeting of the board was held in a spirit of optimism and I am certain that their future is sound. There is a willingness all round to work towards success. I am pleased that the Opposition do not intend to oppose this motion. I am hoping all Members of the House will endorse this sum of £7 million.
As another person with a vested interest being a member of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, I should like to say a few words. It is one good thing from 1985, coming to the recess, that we can talk about good news from Dublin port. There were during the year numerous debates, Private Notice Questions, questions on the Adjournment and motions in Private Members' Time. Deputy Wilson and I in various ways have tried to highlight the problems of Dublin port and to argue for its viability and its future. We have tried to bring it back to profitability. As Deputy Wilson has outlined, the solution will be supported by us, but it should not be forgotten that it was the Minister for Communications who earlier in the year closed the port. There were difficulties, arguments and staffing problems and a long drawn-out battle and, as Deputy Glenn has said, a feeling of gloom and doom. There was dejection among the community that live from the port area activities and fear that this Government would sell out the assets. We went through strikes and counter strikes and I know from the Department Officials that it was not easy for them to keep negotiations open in difficult circumstances from time to time.
The port of Dublin is just too important to the capital city and we are very lucky to have such a port. For generations it has led to the expansion of the city. It is regrettable that in recent years it has been run down. Nobody should run away from the difficulties there, but business has been lost to that port and gained by other ports up and down the coast. They may have been able to undercut, but the main reason was a secure service being offered without fear of industrial action. At last we have industrial peace. The management at the last two meetings have said that the workers have shown tremendous productivity and that there is a new life and enthusiasm in them and it is hoped that we will win back much of the business which has gone to other ports.
I want to make it quite clear that the difficulties have had nothing to do with the various arrangements under the Urban Development Bill of 1982, as Deputy Glenn has alleged. That Bill had set out to pay market price for the 27 acre site but in 1982 that site was not ready for sale. There was a substantial number of warehouses there at that time and there still is. The Department of the Environment had been instructed by the Minister of the day, Deputy Ray Burke, that there would be negotiations to pay market value, or something of that order. To use that excuse is regrettable and that lie should be firmly laid. During 1982 the Urban Development Bill never passed even Second Stage. There was no question of the management of the port being able to sell that site at market price. They were in no position to do so, or to put a package together. There may have been a few telephone inquiries and some written ones but for management to say that the difficulties of 1982 to 1985 originated from a decision of a previous Government to buy the site cheap and develop it is an excuse and a very poor one which would not stand up to scrutiny from anybody with the slightest knowledge of figures. The management do themselves damage by using that excuse. It does nothing for their credibility.
I hope that the Minister when concluding will inform the House of the moves the Government now propose to make and the action which will be taken in Dublin port. What type of commercial structure will be in place by this time next year? It is reliably learned from inspired leaks that the legislation is ready and will be circulated during the recess. If that is true, will the Minister confirm that? Would he give us details, as requested by Deputy Wilson, about the formation of the board? I totally subscribe to that Deputy's views that to make the port successful the vested interest lobby must be removed. They can give their advice in the same way as any other board in any area, but the board have outlived their usefulness. What is necessary is a commercial market-orientated board with modern management and techniques, to encourage proper activity and use of the land and very valuable assets which are now lying dormant. At a recent board meeting I looked out of the window and in the middle of the working day could see cranes lying idle, warehouses closed and the port virtually at a standstill. Thankfully in recent weeks it appears to be moving again, as Deputy Glenn has said, but it is a long haul. That important site, if co-ordinated and used properly by a good board in the business interests of the whole country, not alone the surrounding Dublin area, would help employment. That area which Deputy Glenn and I represent has the highest unemployment. There is a vast number of warehouses readily available; all that is needed is a change of locks and one could use them for storage. There are serviced sites, with no need for the IDA to start from scratch. Some organisations which I will not mention are prepared to give them to voluntary groups at 50p a year to give them some use, which is very commendable, but it is a pity that the whole area cannot be used to regenerate the employment given for generations.
The Minister should take this opportunity to tell us his proposals, because there is confusion. Some people say the legislation will be out shortly, but the Green Paper issued last week appears to be putting the development of the port on the long finger. It we are to make a success of the port area we badly need a new board and I am doing myself out of a job here. One of the reasons for my going on to the board, which I would like to put on the record of the House, was to highlight the fact that it was a talking shop, achieving very little. My views have been confirmed. I am not saying that the members do not serve the board well and have not the interests of the port at heart but there is a far more efficient and effective way and it would be a pity to lose an opportunity to further that. If the staff are given assurances that their pension rights and jobs will be protected and that agreements entered into will be adhered to, they will be glad to see a change. The remaining staff and their families can see that only a commercially viable port can be of benefit to anybody. The difficulties and strikes of the past 20 years have done no good.
What are the Minister's proposals for the special development authority? The 27-acre site and many other areas are connected with this. I understood from a statement made on the first day of this session that the Bill was to be published before Christmas but that has been changed. The Minister of State responsible has unfortunately been in hospital and if that is the reason for the delay then it is fully understood. The Minister might say what arrangements there are to hand over this site to the special development authority. It is very important for the port.
There is some concern that under the Spain package for B & I sections of Dublin port could be run down while Dún Laoghaire would be expanded. Capital investment would be put into Dún Laoghaire, to the detriment of Dublin port. I hope that will not happen. We must consider the whole port area, not just that part of it which is in the hands of the Port and Docks Board. All the activities of the port must be under one board so that they can be properly managed. The problems which resulted from the diabolical decision to set up Dublin Cargo Handling are patently obvious. Whatever legislation is enacted must be concerned with the development of the entire port for the benefit of the city. It must not be dealt with in any piecemeal way.
I welcome this measure. It brings an end to the difficulties of the port this year. I hope that 1986 will see an expansion in the port. Legislation setting up a new board would help bring that hope to fruition.
I should like to address two issues, the first of which is how we set about providing reasonable protection for the taxpayers' pound in contributing to the rescue package for Dublin port. The second is the broader issue of the development of Dublin port and bay in the round, not just for shipping and trading uses but also for wider amenity and recreational uses.
This is the first time Dublin port has had to call on the taxpayer for State funds in the form of grants and guaranteed loans. In dealing with this measure it is very important that we put Dublin port on a proper footing at the outset regarding access to State funds. Too often in the past we have had an excessively tolerant attitude towards semi-State bodies. We failed to set down clear enough objectives for them and when difficulties have been met the taxpayer has been drawn in without proper control or knowledge of what has been happening. It is important on this occasion when Dublin port are coming to the State for the first time for assistance that we should get the ground rules right from the beginning.
The report of the National Planning Board issued in April 1984 dealt at considerable length with the issue of how we protect the taxpayer as the shareholder in various State bodies. It is worthwhile for this House to reconsider the things said then as to the ideal we should be approaching. One of the proposals was that there should be very clear objectives agreed for any State body and that we should set up performance indicators as an aid to the taxpayer in seeing that we are getting proper return on money invested. The board talked about the need to develop measures of productivity, manning, efficiency of the use of assets like vehicles, etc. It is important in dealing with Dublin port that we set about having a board responsible for meeting performance indicators under headings like those.
Too often in the past customer requirements have suffered in the Dublin port area. There have been definite question marks over the availability of the service and its quality and reliability. There has been a high level of complaints. It is up to the State and the board acting on the State's behalf to make sure that once and for all we set indicators of what we regard as good performance by a board on these various counts. We should get yearly accounts of how they fare relative to those indicators and we should make Dublin port subject to scrutiny by the Oireachtas committee in the same way as other State bodies. It is not at present one of the bodies subject to such scrutiny and we should set about altering that.
The National Planning Board drew attention to the fact that there should be a concerted effort to move costs of services towards the levels obtaining in competing EC countries. This is especially important in the major port in this country. Although Dublin is regrettably losing trade, it handles almost one-third of our trade. It is crucial that we should be in a position to offer in Dublin rates of service in line with those in competing countries. We should set targets for the board in moving towards keen competitive rates over a period of years.
The other issue that must be addressed is the need for a proper restructuring of capital liabilities of State bodies. The National Planning Board advocated that we should decide on what level of capital liabilities can be serviced by an efficient running of the assets by Dublin port so that we write off any other liabilities that exist and put the port on a clearly commercial footing. Too often in the past we have been dragged increasingly into giving subventions by way of equity injections because we did not set clear objectives and commercial operating procedures for State boards at the outset. It is crucial that Dublin port should be given a proper start so that we do not find ourselves in a situation where, year by year, the board are not on a proper footing and we are drawn into a further enabling guaranteed loan or grants in the years to come. We must be very careful to see that the board are conscious that that is their brief.
One issue in relation to the board which causes me concern is the feature that Dublin Port and Docks Board, like many other State boards, do not have a funded pension scheme. I know many people were very concerned and anxious during the difficulties which Dublin port experienced this year in regard to their pension entitlements. It is regrettable that so many State boards do not have pension schemes and it is an issue which we should be tackling.
I should now like to turn to the broader context of the development of Dublin's port and bay which must also be considered when dealing with Dublin port and docks and future developments of the board in their commercial activities. This is an important opportunity to review some of the options outlined by the Minister in his Green Paper and I welcome a statement by him when he spoke in the House on a Fianna Fáil motion in regard to Dublin port, that he would envisage the new port authority taking a wider role than simply the operation of their port activities. They should also take a wider role in the protection of amenities and the development of non-commercial activities. However, I am worried in the Dublin context that it is the intention of the Minister to split ports rigidly into a three way classification of commercial, fishing or amenity ports. It would not do Dublin a favour to establish such a sharp dichotomy between a commercial and an amenity port. If Dublin was designated as a commercial port, which it undoubtedly would be, and the amenity side was played down we would suffer in the long run. There is a need for a much broader context in which Dublin port and bay should be developed. We do not have a forum at present in which the orderly development, balancing commercial interests with other users of Dublin port, can take place. It is crucial that there should be such dialogue between commercial activities and others. I am fearful that we will now build in a further scattering of responsibilities for the port. At present Dublin Corporation are responsible for the sort of industries which go into the port area and, obviously, in the light of recent experiences with the proposed LPG development in the port area, we need a proper planning context for Dublin port which would prevent hazardous industries being located there.
I am concerned that the water quality management aspect will be hived off to a separate area, namely, An Foras Forbartha and the corporation, to be separate from the commercial side of the port activities.
We are now welcoming the proposal for a development authority for the site of 27 acres on the city quay but it is worrying that it should be seen as purely a land development issue. The potential for using the water resource is in danger of being put on a back burner compared to land development. We need a broadly based approach to the port as an asset with many purposes. I am fearful that the only agency now looking at that, the Eastern Regional Development Organisation, do not have the sort of teeth to ensure that there is a proper balance between the various demands on the port. I should like the Minister to examine carefully, in conjunction with the Minister for the Environment and Dublin Corporation, how we can develop a forum where there is orderly planning development for Dublin port, recognising the Port and Docks Board commercial brief but also recognising the crucial nature of the recreational and other uses of Dublin port area and the quays.
Deputy Wilson and Deputy Ahern spoke about the reconstitution of Dublin Port and Docks Board and the vital part they would play in the future of the port. I thoroughly agree with them. The Government considered the structure of Dublin Port and Docks Board in the light of a number of factors including the Dublin docks review group and decided, in principle, that legislation should be prepared to provide for a more efficient management structure. The Minister said that he will disband the Port and Docks Board at the earliest opportunity and will create a new Dublin ports authority. This requires legislation and the necessary provisions will be included in an enabling provision in the Bill dealing with harbours. The Bill will deal primarily with the Shannon port authority and the Minister said that he expects to circulate the Bill during the Christmas recess and that he hopes it will be enacted early next year.
Will there be just one Bill?
The harbours Bill dealing with the Shannon port authority will have an enabling provision within it which will deal with the Dublin Port and Docks Board——
That is downgrading Dublin in favour of Shannon.
It is a convenient location and it will enable the quick introduction of the Bill——
I was thinking of civic pride.
The end result will justify this quick action. It will lead to a revitalisation of the dockland area.
Will we have a new port of Dublin board early in the New Year established by amending the Harbours Act.
Yes, this will provide the enabling legislation to do this. Deputy Wilson mentioned borrowing by Dublin Port and Docks Board. Following the successful completion of negotiations between Dublin Cargo Handling Limited and the docks labour force and in order to enable redundancy payments to be met by the company, a revised borrowing package, which includes State guaranteed borrowing, was agreed between the Port and Docks Board and their bankers in early October. The bank loans are conditional, inter alia, on the State guarantee being in place by the end of the year.
The total bank borrowing facilities of the board are just under £20 million of which £7 million has been covered by this guarantee. In view of the non-disposal for the present of the port centre, the Minister has consented to a Local Loans Fund loan of £3 million to the board on the understanding that this will be used to reduce existing bank borrowing. The board also drew down a Local Loans Fund loan of £2.5 million in February of this year in respect of a new ro-ro berth. As Deputies are aware, responsibility for all the borrowings of Dublin Cargo Handling has been taken over by Dublin Port and Docks Board.
None of the £7 million has been borrowed yet?
It is included in the £20 million.
But they have not reached the £20 million yet.
I understand their commitments would total a little less than £20 million. As regards the number employed by Dublin Cargo Handling Limited, the Horgan report suggested 120 dockers. The actual number of redundancies to October 1985 was 106 leaving the present establishment at 162. That is less than the target set by the Horgan report but I am optimistic and if everyone works together it should lead to a satisfactory situation. As regards the Custom House docks site, I agree with all that has been said about its importance and its commercial potential. The future of the Custom House docks site has been considered by the Government in the light of the report of the interdepartmental working party who had examined the matter. The Government decided that the Minister for the Environment should have a Bill drafted to provide for the establishment of a new authority to direct and control the redevelopment of the Custom House docks site. Details of the transfer of the site from the Port and Docks Board will be addressed in the context of the drafting of the Bill. As Deputies are aware the Government accepted the working party's recommendations. The principal features included the establishment of a special statutory authority which will be introduced by the Minister for the Environment, the provision of a range of financial incentives to attract developers and occupiers to the site, and the incentive to provide a 100 per cent capital allowance for non-industrial building, section 23-type allowance for owners of residential property on the site and double rent allowance for traders to offset against taxation and rates remission for ten years.
It would be interesting to know the relationship between the new Ports and Docks Board and that authority.
We will have to wait for the Bill as produced by the Minister for the Environment to get any further details but I agree with what has been said about the importance of that authority. It must be a top notch authority because of the job they have to do, especially in the initial stages before setting the structure in motion, and also on an ongoing basis.
Deputy Glenn mentioned a free port being introduced at Ringaskiddy. The Second Stage of this Bill has passed through the Dáil and during that debate the possibility of introducing free ports in other areas was mentioned. I repeat what I said during that debate, that there is a need for caution and we must make haste slowly because if we have too many free ports they might be counterproductive. We have a lot to learn from the experience of the United Kingdom in this area, but I maintain that despite claims by other areas, the best way to proceed in this area is to learn from the experience of Ringaskiddy.
Deputy Ahern and Deputy Wilson spoke about the proposed sale of the port centre. As Deputies are aware, the Minister withheld his consent to a proposal by the Dublin Port and Docks Board for the sale and lease-back of the port centre because he did not regard the terms as being satisfactory from the board's point of view. Of its nature the board's sale was the subject of much controversy and I would like to take this opportunity to explain the circumstances in which my Department requested the Port and Docks Board to take steps to secure a sale and lease-back arrangement for the port centre.
The Government rescue package included a provision that the Port and Docks Board would take steps, including disposal of assets, to rectify their financial situation. As part of a comprehensive review by my Department of measures needed to restore Dublin port to financial viability, the board had, at the request of my Department, identified in December 1984 a number of possible disposable assets including the Custom House docks site and the sale and lease-back of the port centre. Subsequently, in March 1985 in the course of their financial review of the affairs of the board and their subsidiary Dublin Cargo Handling Limited, Coopers and Lybrand referred to asset disposal possibilities, again including the Custom House docks site and the port centre, which had been identified by the finance subcommittee of the Port and Docks Board. Apart from the Custom House docks site, the single most valuable disposable asset identified was the port centre.
It was in the foregoing context that my Department, in conveying to the board in May last details of the Government's revised rescue package, requested the board to take steps to secure a sale and lease-back arrangement for the port centre and to report back on the outcome. It is entirely a matter for the board to select assets for disposal and then to seek the approval of the Minister for Communications in each case. Consent was withheld on this occasion because the terms were not satisfactory. I hope this will set the record straight on the controversial issue.
Non-implementation of the board's proposal, for the present, for sale and lease-back of the port centre has had implications for the board in so far as the level of bank borrowings is concerned. Having considered the position in consultation with the Minister for Finance, the Minister has given favourable consideration to an application from the board for a Local Loans Fund loan of £3 million on the understanding that such a loan would be used to reduce existing bank borrowing.
Deputy Bruton mentioned the performance indicators and monitoring of the situation. He can rest assured that the performance of the Dublin Port and Docks Board will be monitored by the Department of Communications on a regular basis. The new authority will introduce a major change, along with the package now on the ground.
I thank Deputies for the welcome they have given this motion, with various reservations of course, but there was a considerable degree of optimism in all the speeches about the future of Dublin port. That was based on solid fact, not on seasonal goodwill or anything of that nature. Because the package has been put in place, the year 1985, with all its difficulties, will be looked on as a good year for the re-establishment of a viable and thriving port. The propects for 1986 are considerably better because we will see progress. I believe the problems of the past year have been put behind us. Dublin Port and Docks Board have a bright future provided the board, the management and the employees work together in a spirit of co-operation. I do not think any of us, irrespective of whether we come from maritime constituencies, would disagree with the primacy of Dublin port and we now have an opportunity of restoring it to its former glory.
Industrial peace is very important and the lack of industrial peace has been a real problem in the past. For the future there must be industrial peace and we must provide a good service for the customers, otherwise they will go to the very good alternatives which are available. Given goodwill between all the parties, I am confident that Dublin port will return very quickly to viability.
I am glad the Minister is taking the advice of Deputy Wilson and myself.
Question put and agreed to.