Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Dún Laoghaire Harbour Bill, 1994: Second Stage.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The main purpose of this Bill is to establish a funding mechanism for the development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour for which, as Deputies will be aware, a major development project is proposed. The project is designed to cater for the first large fast ferry of its kind in the world which, subject, inter alia, to the planning process, is due to be introduced on the Holyhead-Dún Laoghaire route from May 1995.

The introduction of this vessel which is being built at a cost of some £65 million sterling will transform maritime transport on the central corridor, reducing the crossing time from three and a half hours to under one and three quarter hours. This will provide major benefits for tourism and trade. Indeed, the very introduction of this unique vessel will generate enormous international interest and provide an opportunity to market Irish business generally.

To cater for this vessel it is necessary to develop facilities at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. Such facilities must be financed and the purpose of this Bill is to enable this finance to be raised outside the Exchequer, while maintaining full public accountability and scrutiny of the expenditures involved. This proposed development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour is an integral part of the Government's general strategy for the development of the maritime transport sector generally and, more particularly, ferry services on the central corridor.

To put this Bill in context it is necessary to understand the present management structure for Dún Laoghaire Harbour and its present business. Responsibility for the management of Dún Laoghaire Harbour was transferred from the Office of Public Works to the Department of the Marine in 1990. Its expenditure is voted under the Marine Vote and its income accrues as an appropriation-in-aid of the Vote.

The Minister for the Marine established an Interim Dún Laoghaire Harbour Board in January 1990 to assist the Minister in all aspects of harbour management and development, including the formulation of overall medium and long term development plans for the harbour. The board, which has 11 members, comprises harbour users and representatives of local community interests. The views of the board have been taken into account in drawing up the present project and they fully support the project. I am very happy to be associated with this development this evening given the fact that I was involved in the launch of this excellent report.

Dún Laoghaire has a long history in the passenger ferry business dating back to 1860. It is the principal passenger port in Dublin Bay, accounting in 1993 for two-thirds of passenger ferry traffic. The harbour directly employs 78 workers and has an annual wage bill of some £1.6 million. Since 1990 cumulative turnover was £12.6 million and the surplus, net of operating and maintenance costs, was £6 million.

The introduction of a small fast ferry on the Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead route in July 1993 stimulated a growth in total passenger numbers for 1993 in the order of 20 per cent when compared with total passenger numbers in 1992. The introduction of further new technology in 1995 should build on and greatly enhance the growing market on the central corridor. Improving economic conditions in the near future, particularly in the UK market, should favour the further growth of the central corridor market.

The level of the employment associated either directly or indirectly with the harbour is substantial. It is generally recognised by commercial and tourist interests in Dún Laoghaire that the existing ferry terminal operation has a significant impact on the local economy. Direct employment related to the harbour and shore based ferry services exceeds 190.

Despite this impressive profile, investment in the terminal facilities in Dún Laoghaire Harbour has been limited. If the harbour is to continue in its primary position for ferry operations, it must invest to provide for the new generation of ferries, which are faster, more comfortable and more versatile.

The development project for Dún Laoghaire must be seen also in the context of the overall strategy for ports. The Government, as provided for in the Programme for a Partnership Government, is committed to the introduction of legislation to provide for restructuring of the management framework for port authorities, through the early introduction of commercial semi-State enterprises, to manage the 12 larger ports, including Dún Laoghaire. This Bill, which will replace the Harbours Act, 1946, will provide for major changes in the management structures of the main ports. In the case of Dún Laoghaire which is managed, at present, directly by the Department of the Marine, the new Harbours Bill will allow the port to be managed as an independent public enterprise and on a commercial basis. This will improve efficiency and enhance its ability to respond to market requirements.

One of the central objectives of port development is aimed at facilitating the expansion of tourism and, by improving access, assisting in the realisation of the employment and earnings potential of this sector. The Government's Task Force on Tourism had indicated that the sector has even greater untapped potential sufficient to provide an additional 35,000 jobs, with a 50 per cent real increase in foreign earnings from tourism over the next five years. The tourism task force recognised access as one of the two biggest barriers to tourism development. Adequate competitive port access is a prerequisite for the development of Irish tourism.

In this context, ferry terminal requirements in Dublin Bay have now been evaluated thoroughly. In particular, the question of closing down Dún Laoghaire Harbour and creating a unified ferry terminal in Dublin Port has been looked at in detail. The Government, taking account of these evaluations, has recently approved a comprehensive strategy for the development of ferry services on the central corridor. This strategy involves the parallel and complementary development of ferry terminals at Dublin Port and Dún Laoghaire and also the development of Holyhead to facilitate the earliest possible introduction of both B & I's and Stena Sealink's new vessels.

In this regard I should mention that the new B & I large vessel is being built at a cost of £45 million. The introduction of these new state of the art vessels will put the central corridor at the forefront of modern ferry technology and services. I am also glad to say that, through the intervention of the Minister for the Marine, an agreement between B & I and Stena Sealink has been brokered which secures the development of Holyhead to meet B & I's needs. It is obviously important that both ends of the line are developed particularly from the point of view of tourism.

The proposal to develop Dún Laoghaire to accommodate the new fast ferry technology is viewed as a priority. The development of a new generation of fast ferries, high speed sea service vessel — HSS — and the operation of the first vessel of this kind in the world on the Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead route is a significant achievement for the Irish economy. The HSS introduces new thinking to the achievement of economies of scale and increased capacity by means of increased frequency of sailing rather than by the introduction of increasingly larger vessels. An important aspect to bear in mind is that the economies and the increased capacity are achieved principally by increased frequency of sailing which is allowed with this new vessel.

With the HSS service the time taken for a single crossing will be reduced to under one and three quarter hours, with a speed through the water of 40 knots. This will allow five round trips in 24 hours. The actual capacity of the HSS is roughly comparable to a conventional ferry but the frequency of service will mean that it can do the work of two of the present ferries. The HSS vessel, costing £65 million, allows for speedy transportation across the Irish Sea for cars, passengers and freight.

I am aware that concerns have been raised about possible increased flows of trucks through Dún Laoghaire Harbour. These concerns are without foundation. The present capacity of Dún Laoghaire Harbour to handle trucks is over 100,000 per annum. The actual flow is only 33,000 per annum. While the maximum capacity of the harbour will increase with the new HSS vessel, actual usage by trucks is not expected to increase to any great extent in the medium term. The principal development will be in the area of passenger and car services.

The Dún Laoghaire Harbour development is intended to strengthen its premier role as an attractive gateway for tourist traffic to Ireland, with Dublin Port maintaining its dominant role in the freight market. Total Ro-Ro traffic at present on the central corridor amounts to about 155,000 units and the vast bulk of this goes through Dublin Port. With the introduction of B & I's new super ferry, the proportion of trucks going through Dublin Port should increase and the Dún Laoghaire share decline.

In order to facilitate this new generation of fast ferries, it is necessary to provide new berthing and terminal facilities in Dún Laoghaire and Holyhead. The capital costs of the project will be funded outside of the Exchequer. The operator has agreed to underwrite, through harbour dues, the level of borrowings necessary to undertake the project. This will avoid any burden on the Exchequer or the taxpayer.

The timetable for this project is tight. If the May 1995 target is to be met, contracts must be awarded before the end of July next and financing must be in place in advance of that date. Hence the urgency of this Bill. The pre-design estimate of cost, as stated in the environmental impact statement which was prepared for the planning process, was £15 million.

Tenders for the main contract have now been invited and the closing date for those tenders was last Friday, 17 June 1994. These tenders are now being assessed with a view to detailed discussions with tenderers and the operator who is underwriting the project. Because of the commercial sensitivities involved and the range of options open, it would not be helpful at this point to speculate on the precise cost of the final contracts to be awarded.

All this is, of course, subject to approval of the project by An Bord Pleanála and the granting of planning permission. What is being sought here is a facility to allow the project to proceed in the event that An Bord Pleanála gives it the go ahead and the enactment of the Bill is strictly without prejudice to that decision.

I should now like to say a few words about the principal provisions of the Bill, the main purpose of which is to establish a funding mechanism for development works at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. The Bill provides for the establishment of the Dún Laoghaire Harbour (Finance) Board. The Schedule to the Bill contains provisions in relation to the board. The board shall consist of not fewer than three and not more than five members who shall be appointed by the Minister for the Marine.

The board, on the direction of the Minister, has the power to secure the necessary moneys to defray the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Minister for the Marine in carrying out the development works in Dún Laoghaire. For this purpose the board may, with the consent of the Minister for the Marine given with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, borrow moneys from commercial sources up to a limit of £20 million. The Minister for Finance may make loans to the board in certain circumstances. The Minister may, by order, appropriate to the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Development Fund a proportion of the revenues payable from the harbour operations at Dún Laoghaire and, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make non-repayable grants to the board.

The functions of the board will be to establish a fund and to secure for payment into the fund the necessary moneys to finance development works at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. Moneys will be paid out of the fund by the board at the discretion of the Minister. The board is required to keep accounts, such accounts to be audited on an annual basis by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The audited accounts, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General shall be laid by the Minister before each House of the Oireachtas.

Borrowings by the board may be guaranteed by the Minister for Finance. An annual report must be submitted to the Minister not later than three months after the end of each financial year in relation to the operation of the fund. Copies of the annual report shall be laid by the Minister before each House of the Oireachtas.

In addition to the foregoing, provision is made in section 2 of the Bill to confirm the development powers of the Minister in relation to Dún Laoghaire Harbour. This has no implications for the planning process. As regards planning, I should stress that successive Ministers have made it clear that any major development at Dún Laoghaire Harbour should be subject to the full rigours of the planning process. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister does not require planning permission to proceed with this project, the outcome of the planning process will be fully respected.

To conclude, I emphasise again the importance of this Bill and the project it is designed to support. I also reiterate that the commencement of the project is, of course, contingent on the outcome of the planning process.

Mr. Bradford

We are not debating tonight the proposed development works at Dún Laoghaire port; that is a matter for another day. While I accept that there is a need for major capital works, the main purpose of this legislation is to put a mechanism in place to fund such works at the port.

When legislation is published on a Thursday, most Members do not receive a copy until the Friday or the following Monday; then when one and a half hours are provided late at night for the debate on Second Stage, and the Committee and Final Stages are expected to be taken the following day, and when the Bill is passed within three or four days of the date of publication, it would cause some people to pause and arouse their suspicions.

Taking this Bill with undue haste will send the wrong signals to the many people who are concerned about proposed development works at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. While I accept that there is a need for urgency I am unhappy that most of us did not receive a copy of the Bill which was published on Thursday, until Friday or Monday and we are expected to conclude the debate tomorrow evening. I do not like that style.

I would prefer the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Andrews, who is abroad on important business to be present, although I am aware that the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, was Minister for the Marine for a short period. What is more important is that the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Andrews, represents the constituency and might benefit from listening to what we have to say, although he would have the protection of a strong Dún Laoghaire lobby. We would be interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Gilmore

Where is the Deputy's Dún Laoghaire lobby?

Mr. Bradford

They will arrive later or perhaps tomorrow. This adds a little spice to the matter, we would prefer if the Minister was present so that we could tease out all these problems with him.

Because the Bill has been taken so quickly I appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare to consider the possibility of taking Committee and Final Stages next week at the earliest as we need time for reflection. I do not like the idea that we should move so quickly from Second to Committee and Final Stages. As the Dáil may not be going into recess next week there would be ample opportunity to discuss the Committee and Final Stages of this Bill. I hope, even at this late stage, the Government will be willing to allow time for reflection as that would ease some of our concerns. The Minister referred to the urgency of the Bill. In the briefing note we received from his office we were told that the new legislation must be enacted before the summer recess to enable funding to be put in place so that work can commence this summer, subject to planning permission. Legislative propriety and scrutiny should always precede commercial considerations. If we must have everything in place before the summer recess, this debate could have taken place last week or the previous week. Indeed, it would not be unprecedented for the Dáil, or a committee of it, to sit in a few weeks' time when An Bord Pleanála announces its decision. I dislike the air of rush and haste which surrounds this Bill.

Our views on the Bill depend on how we perceive plans for the development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour, but we are at a disadvantage in that the matter must go before An Bord Pleanála for decision. We were informed by the Minister for the Marine last week, and again tonight, that this matter is without prejudice to the decision of An Bord Pleanála. With respect, that is somewhat naive. There is an air of arrogance about the concept of arranging and putting in place proposals, plans and mechanisms which should not be put in place until An Bord Pleanála make a certain decision. We are putting the cart before the horse and Deputy Sheehan and I are concerned in this regard.

Dr. Woods

Deputy Bradford should ask Deputy Sheehan how quickly I acted in Castletownbere.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister has still not got rid of the Bardini Reefer.

Dr. Woods

That is coming.

Mr. Sheehan

It is blocking the entrance to the harbour and the Government has failed to get rid of it.

Mr. Bradford

There is concern about the proposal in the Bill to do some retrospective tidying up. Some aspects of the Bill impinge on harbour law and policy as it operated to date and section 2 is a new departure in this regard. The Explanatory Memorandum states that section 2 confirms the development powers of the Minister in relation to Dún Laoghaire Harbour. Fortunately I am not a one page man and I examined the contents of the Bill which clearly indicate that section 2 does much more than that. It states that the Minister shall have, and be deemed always to have had, power to carry out, or procure the carrying out of, development in Dún Laoghaire Harbour. The provisions of that section are retrospective and are a new departure so far as marine policy and law are concerned. Section 2 could have a profound retrospective effect and pre-empt decisions of An Bord Pleanála. It also renders debate on this legislation more difficult for the majority of us.

Section 2 would put in place the capacity for retrospective solutions to problems and that is not the ideal way to deal with planning or policy matters. Perhaps retrospective solutions are becoming the Irish answer to Irish problems, but I do not favour such a departure from policy. What legal advice has been sought and obtained by the Minister for the Marine in regard to this retrospective section? Has the Attorney General adjudicated on the matter and is the Minister satisfied with the legal certainty of putting in place section 2?

Under the provisions of the Bill, a board will be set up which will be the most meaningless and powerless board in the State. It will be a toothless tiger, nothing but a mouthpiece for the Minister. The Bill does not even attempt to give it meaningful power. Section 4 gives the Minister power to give directions to the board members as to what they may and may not do. He will not advise them and they will not advise him. Why is this board being set up? It will carry out nothing but the explicit instructions and demands of the Minister. There is no attempt in the legislation to give it any independence or autonomy. There has always been a strong tendency to set up boards and there is never any difficulty in finding members to sit on them — they attract members like magnets. The Schedule to the Bill does not indicate the qualifications necessary for members to sit on this board. Will the Minister allow public representatives to sit on it? It is unsatisfactory that there is no mechanism to prohibit interested parties — people with a direct interest in port development — from sitting on the board.

We recently debated legislation which involved the setting up of boards, for example the Irish Horseracing Industry Bill and the An Bord Bia Bill, in which there were clear definitions about who could sit on such boards. Similar definitions should apply in regard to this board. I will take up that matter on Committee Stage which I hope will be taken in the next week or so.

The legislation puts in place procedures and mechanisms which will be advantageous to Dún Laoghaire harbour. I do not begrudge the people of that area such advantages, but I am sure there will be a cry for similar mechanisms and advantages from other harbours throughout the country. Despite what the Minister said about the lack of Government funding we are putting in place a mechanism whereby loans taken out by the Minister for the Marine can be guaranteed by the Minister for Finance. This is a new departure which should be beneficial to Dún Laoghaire. However, many other ports throughout the country would dearly love to have the benefit of such a facility and I would like to know if there is any prospect of this.

There is also a facility whereby non-refundable grant aid can be paid to this board. Such grant aid, from the Government or the EU, will also be advantageous to Dún Laoghaire. It too is a facility I hope will be considered for other harbours because what is good for one harbour is good for others.

Although I have no doubt that the Minister can handle this legislation more than adequately, I would have preferred to see the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Andrews, here to present us with his own unique constituency-departmental view of the matter. However, we will hear the arguments for Dún Laoghaire.

I have no difficulty with the concept of developments at Dún Laoghaire. My difficulty relates to rushing this Bill through the House. I hope we will not repent at leisure in the years ahead. I make a final plea to the Minister to make representations to his Whip's office with a view to ensuring that Committee and Report Stages will not be taken tomorrow so that we will at least have some days to reflect further on the legislation.

Ms Keogh

I am delighted that Deputy Woods is in the House to take this Bill, but I regret that the Minister for the Marine is unable to be with us. It is a matter of particular regret that this Bill is being rushed through in the dark reaches of the night, although perhaps not quite as late as we were initially led to believe.

Dr. Woods

It is early yet. This is the longest day.

Ms Keogh

Deputy Woods, when Minister for the Marine, gave a commitment on Dún Laoghaire harbour to the Seanad and to me in particular. However, when discussing legislation like this the appropriate Minister should be here and it is a matter of regret that he is not, and not just because of his Dún Laoghaire connection. I thought we would have fielded a Dún Laoghaire team tonight but it will be up to me and Deputy Gilmore to bat on behalf of Dún Laoghaire.

Given that there will be no oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála on the planning decisions for Dún Laoghaire harbour, those who have misgivings about its development will be very disappointed at passing this legislation through the House in a rushed manner. Whatever about having the Second Stage debate this evening, I was quite surprised to see that we will have the Committee and Final Stages tomorrow evening because, like others, although I got a short briefing document on the Bill late last week, I only saw the Bill yesterday and it is difficult for Opposition Deputies to table meaningful amendments in such a short space of time. I have endeavoured to do so and I hope that if we are taking Committee Stage tomorrow evening we will have ample opportunity to discuss some of the aspects of the Bill that may give rise to concern.

As An Bord Pleanála refused permission for an oral hearing it is important to discuss some of the issues with which people have had difficulty in relation to the development of Dún Laoghaire harbour. I am not critical of the board — we must respect its decisions — but it is unfortunate that we did not have an oral hearing because it would have provided an opportunity for full and open debate on the future of the harbour as perceived in the planning permission and the development plan. However, it is important to put on the record that over a period of years a full consultative process was embarked upon. In putting the draft development plan for the harbour on public display, the interim harbour board of Dún Laoghaire went to great lengths to ensure the fullest public participation. The initial plan was on public display over a period of months and over 7,000 people saw it. There were about 500 submissions on foot of it and a number of them were taken on board. There was broad consultation with advisory groups, the Chamber of Commerce and others to arrive at a consensus about our harbour. Criticism that the plan is being rushed through is, therefore, difficult to take — I am not referring to this Bill but to the plan. That is not so because it has been under discussion for quite some time.

It is also important to stress that we are particularly aware of the importance of tourism development in Dún Laoghaire and that is where development of the harbour and the ferry terminal will come into its own. I am concerned at the suggestion that this will result in heavy freight movement through Dún Laoghaire when that is not something we support.

We particularly want to promote tourism development through the Stena Sealink company. As a county council member for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Dún Laoghaire Borough I remember that there was at the time quite a degree of discussion about submissions on the plan, including those from the Royal St. George Yacht Club. That body, with An Taisce and other groups, supported the principle of developing Dún Laoghaire harbour and stressed the importance of the development of the ferry terminal for the future development of Dún Laoghaire given its high rate of unemployment and the fact that the town was practically on its last legs. They said that the ferry terminal was crucial and the key to the future development of Dún Laoghaire. It was gratifying to see a well balanced submission which did not focus on sectoral interests. A survey carried out in 1988 showed that the ferry service contributed some £14 million to the local economy. I do not know what that would be in today's terms but it would certainly be over £20 million. That puts in context the importance of the ferry service to Dún Laoghaire. The economy of Dún Laoghaire, the county town of the new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, needs the stimulation which development of the ferry service would provide.

Concerns have been expressed about the increased traffic on this route. The high speed service will carry much more traffic in 24 hours than existing ships, but will not carry more traffic in any one sailing. The extra sailings will be evenly spread over the day. Fears have been expressed about an increased number of trucks rolling through Dún Laoghaire. The fact that the HSS can carry 50 trucks per sailing does not mean it will carry that number. It has been stated that about 1,000 extra trucks will pass through the port, but that is not the case. In its submission to An Bord Pleanála Stena Sealink forecasts that the rate of heavy freight will decrease over a period of a year by thousands of units. It is useful to put this on the record.

Over a period of six years Stena Sealink is injecting £110 million into the development of Dún Laoghaire. Considering that under this Bill we are talking about £20 million, this puts in context the input of Stena Sealink and its commitment to Dún Laoghaire. In line with the reassurances we have received from the company, there should be a response by the public representatives of the area. The injection into the Irish economy by way of employment, port dues and the purchase of goods and services, without receiving a Government subsidy, may not be unique but it is something of which we do not have much experience. Such commitment to an area deserves all the support possible. In the context of developing the tourism industry, development of the harbour must be supported.

I had hoped we would have more time between Second Stage and Committee Stage of the Bill. I am concerned about the powers given to the Minister. We will have an opportunity to tease out this matter on Committee Stage and I have put down amendments in this area. It is proposed that there will be three to five people on the board but it is unacceptable that these people be appointed by the Minister. If we are to ensure openness and transparency there should be a better mechanism for appointing members to the board so that they will be seen to be independent. These people will have certain responsibilities but overall responsibility will rest with the Minister. Support for the development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour should be reflected by appointing local people to the board. This matter may be discussed further on Committee Stage and I will not dwell on it, but it is important that people from the locality be appointed to the board as that would ensure accountability to the area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.

The spring 1993 bulletin of Dún Laoghaire Harbour refers to the report of the review group on commercial harbours, published by the former Minister for the Marine, Deputy Woods. It states that a State company should be set up to manage Irish ports and it stressed the specialist passenger handling element of Dún Laoghaire port. The potential of Dún Laoghaire is not in heavy freight but in specialist passenger handling. In that area there is a proven record and the company wishes to develop it. If properly handled, such development will be extremely successful. I support the Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

I join with my colleagues in expressed disappointment that the Minister for the Marine is not here to put through this important legislation. I also join in the statements on the rushed way in which this Bill is being put through the Oireachtas. In principle it is bad that any legislation, albeit relatively uncomplicated legislation such as this, should be circulated at short notice, with Committee and Remaining Stages to be taken within a couple of days of Second Stage. I support the request from Deputy Bradford and Deputy Keogh that Committee and Remaining Stages be postponed until next week.

The way in which this Bill is being put before the House, on top of the decision by An Bord Pleanála not to grant an oral hearing into the planning application, will fuel a belief that there is a hidden agenda and that behind the scenes moves are being made in the development of Dún Laoghaire harbour. That is regrettable and unnecessary because the development of Dún Laoghaire is perfectly capable of being defended and argued for either at the oral hearing or at any forum at which it comes up for discussion.

The Bill concerns the proposed development of a new terminal facility at Dún Laoghaire Harbour to accommodate the high speed vessel which Stena Sealink intends to operate from next summer on the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead route. This new service and the development to accommodate it have been the subject of local and media comment in recent weeks. I take this opportunity to restate my position on it.

I have always believed that the development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour must be seen in three contexts: first, Ireland's position in relation to the rest of Europe following completion of the Channel Tunnel; second, the development of a port and shipping policy; and, third, the needs of the town of Dún Laoghaire and the wider Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county. There is no argument about the need for a fast and efficient means of getting on and off this island by sea. The new vessel commissioned by Stena Sealink will be the fastest sea vessel ever to ply the Irish Sea. There are some who question its size and desirability, but just as the age of the steam ship was left behind, so too is this new vessel replacing the traditional car ferry.

Why should it take three and a half hours to make a journey which can now be done in half the time? The question of immediate concern is, of course, whether this vessel should be put on the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead route. Clearly, it is logical to do so. Dún Laoghaire to Holyhead is the shortest sea route between Ireland and Britain. Dún Laoghaire is the most used passenger sea port in this State and if we are serious about the development of the tourism industry in Dún Laoghaire we must develop it as it is an attractive destination in its own right. Those who argue that the development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour should not proceed are saying in effect that Dún Laoghaire should cease to be the main passenger port, which it now is. They are arguing for the relocation of the ferry to another port and for the ending of Dún Laoghaire's historic role as the main passenger sea port in the country. There are good maritime, transport and strategic reasons in the national interest for this development to proceed but there are also compelling local reasons for it and as a Deputy representing the Dún Laoghaire constituency I wish to put those on record.

There are 8,000 people signing on at Dún Laoghaire labour exchange. There are 15,000 people out of work in the new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county, over 20 per cent of the workforce. This is one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country, but unlike other parts of Dublin or the country, there are only limited opportunities to tackle unemployment in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is largely built up with only limited scope for further industrial development. Therefore, we have to look to tourism or to the sea to provide some of the opportunities for the generation of employment locally. The greatest single asset in Dún Laoghaire is its harbour. We have no choice in Dún Laoghaire but to maximise the potential of the harbour. That means the retention of the car ferry, which in turn means moving with the changing maritime technology and being prepared to facilitate the most up-to-date development in shipping.

I support the development of the new facility in Dún Laoghaire, because it is good for the town, good for the new county and good for the country as it gives us more speedy access to the rest of Europe. I do not support the development blindly. I have no illusions that the new ferry facility will generate huge employment or transform the economic fortunes of the area but it is the key to the economic revival of Dún Laoghaire, a town which has been in the economic doldrums for far too long. The new HSS will bring people to Dún Laoghaire but the challenge will be to retain them in the town for a couple of nights and to do so we must provide facilities to encourage people to stay and spend in our town. That is why I am supporting this development, the development of a cultural facility on the old pavilion site and the development of a multiplex cinema complex on the old Dominican site and why I supported the development of a water leisure facility on the Dún Laoghaire baths site. I believe the development of these facilities coupled with the new ferry will revive the economic life of Dún Laoghaire and generate valuable employment downstream in tourism and services sectors.

Dún Laoghaire needs this type of investment and if it does not get it, I am fearful for the future of the town and its hinterland. The levels of unemployment and the social problems that emanate from poverty are just not sustainable in Dún Laoghaire. I know that many who are opposed to this development are understandably concerned about its impact on the residential amenities of Dún Laoghaire and its surrounding areas but I invite them to reflect on the impact on residential amenities of the serious social problems which we are beginning to witness and which will worsen unless we turn around the economic fortunes of the area and provide employment and hope, especially to young people.

The new ferry facility will probably result in some traffic problems, but these may not be as great as some claim. They are capable of being tackled in the context of the traffic management plan under consideration by the county council.

There is another aspect of the whole issue that must be referred to, namely, the question of employment. Coupled with the development of this facility I want to see an increase in employment both in the harbour itself and in shipping activity. It is disappointing that since the Department of the Marine — which I acknowledge has done an excellent job in the management of Dún Laoghaire Harbour — took over the harbour there has been a reduction in the numbers employed. The Department of the Marine took over the management of the harbour in 1988 and the number of employees in the harbour has been reduced by 39 despite the fact that the number of sailings to and from Dún Laoghaire has increased from two to eight. It is not acceptable where port activity is increasing that there is a reduction in employment. On his return I hope the Minister for the Marine will address the issue of increasing employment and of providing additional permanent jobs in the harbour. I do not want to see a completely capital intensive facility develop which will not generate additional employment.

Let me put down a marker on shipping activity. I have received reports about some of the employment practices of the operator in Dún Laoghaire Harbour. I am very concerned about the increasing casualisation of employment on the vessels to and from the port. I believe the dispute now taking place in B & I is essentially about the same issue, the replacement of secure employment with good conditions. I do not want to see a return to pre-Larkin type employment practices on our ships. I want to see an increase in secure employment as well as hearing more Irish accents the next time I board the Catamaran.

It is disappointing that this is an interim Bill. Everything about Dún Laoghaire Harbour seems to be interim. An interim harbour board was appointed several years ago and we do not have a proper harbour authority. Now we propose to establish an interim body, able to raise loans so that the development can go ahead. I cannot understand why it was not possible to present a Bill establishing Dún Laoghaire Harbour Authority on a statutory basis, as we have been seeking for many years, giving proper representation to the marine, local community and local authority interests to manage Dún Laoghaire Harbour. I am disappointed with this half-way-house measure, a solution to an immediate problem which arises because of the funding needed to proceed with the development if planning permission is granted by An Bord Pleanála. The Minister should have come before us with a Bill providing for a proper harbour authority as the issue has been around for long enough in the Department of the Marine. When we come to Committee Stage I intend to table an amendment to that effect. I also want go express concern — I will be tabling amendments on this also — about the retrospective nature of section 2, to which Deputy Bradford referred. I do not see any necessity for it. It is not desirable and should be addressed.

I have concerns too, about section 6 (7) which allows for the disposal of investments by this board. I am not quite sure what those investments are but any time I see the word "dispose" appearing in a Bill, especially given this Government's penchant for privatisation, I see red. I will certainly want assurances that we do not have some kind of Trojan Horse for the privatisation of Dún Laoghaire Harbour or some part of it. I want that section scrutinised carefully on Committee Stage.

I support this Bill, which is necessary, and I support the development of the new ferry facility at Dún Laoghaire. I want to see it proceed. The problems associated with it will have to be addressed. A proper harbour authority for Dún Laoghaire should be established. I do not believe it is necessary for Dún Laoghaire to wait until the legislation dealing with the major ports and setting up the semi-State companies is brought before the House. Dún Laoghaire port is unique in that it is owned by the Department of the Marine. This development should proceed if planning permission is granted by An Bord Pleanála and a proper harbour authority should be established.

The Minister for the Marine must address urgently the need to provide additional employment at Dún Laoghaire Harbour, particularly following these developments. The tendencies I detect by operators in the shipping industry must be addressed also because we should not allow a return to out of date employment practices.

Mr. Sheehan

As a Deputy living in a maritime constituency, I am only too aware of the need to improve our harbours. Dún Laoghaire Harbour, however, has been the Mecca of development down the years. The traffic generated through it is a clear indication of the viability of the harbour. If that harbour was located in the west of Ireland it would not generate such an amount of traffic.

Mr. Gilmore

Where would it be going?

Mr. Sheehan

Deputy Gilmore travels to the west and south west on holiday.

Mr. Gilmore

Not by boat.

Mr. Sheehan

Unfortunately, a difficulty we encounter in the south, south west and west is that we have no roll-on/roll-off services such as those in Dún Laoghaire. I am amazed that the EU Structural Funds are being gobbled up by Deputy Gilmore and other Deputies from Dublin constituencies——

Mr. Gilmore

We are not getting any.

Mr. Sheehan

——and being used to build flyovers, bypasses and roll-on/roll-off services while no attention is being given to other areas.

Dr. Woods

Cork did pretty well. There is a fine port there.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister stated that this development will be to cater for the first large fast ferry in the world, another record for Dún Laoghaire and the east coast. We have no such records to boast about in the south west and on the western seaboard. Will the benefits accruing to Dún Laoghaire have a detrimental effect on the Rosslare-Fishguard, the Cork-Swansea and the Cork-Roscoff services? There is little point in creating a "monster" in one part of the country to the detriment of other areas.

We cannot live on fresh air and cold water.

Mr. Gilmore

We cannot live on it either.

Mr. Sheehan

We must have proper infrastructures in our areas.

Mr. Gilmore

The water in Cork is much fresher than it is in Dublin.

Mr. Sheehan

The Minister stated that the cost of this enterprise will be £65 million sterling. He stated also that it will reduce the crossing time from three and a half hours to under one and three quarter hours — another major achievement — on this the narrowest stretch of water dividing Ireland from the United Kingdom. He said this will result in major benefits for tourism and trade, generate enormous international interest and provide an opportunity to market Irish business. At whose cost will Irish business be marketed? Will it be marketed into one region in the country, taking it through one of the most developed areas where one-third of the population resides, namely, Dublin? The Minister said it will generate more development and activity into that corridor.

Mr. Gilmore

Is Fine Gael against this development?

Mr. Sheehan

My party is not against it. We want to see fair play given to other areas also. We have lost out again in the south western region in regard to the INTERREG funds, a subject on which I will be speaking later. We have developed excellent facilities in Ringaskiddy and Rosslare but one region should not have a monopoly to the detriment of others.

Does the Minister intend to downgrade the Cork-Roscoff, the Cork-Swansea and the Rosslare-Fishguard ferry services? Does he wish to downgrade the Greenore and Larne services? It is difficult to understand the Minister's commitment to this port development when one hears the demands of our island people for a proper ferry service.

The Minister made a comment about Castletownbere and what the Government had done for that port.

Dr. Woods

I did it for you, Deputy. What is the Deputy talking about? I extended the harbour in rapid time.

Mr. Sheehan

I am not blaming the Minister but the Government has provided no funds for an adequate ferry service from Bere Island to the mainland, where a fatal tragedy took place recently. No State money was provided for a ferry service from that island to the mainland in Castletownbere. I am amazed that Members can emphasise the necessity for a £20 million guaranteed Government loan for one area while the Government has failed to contribute to a decent ferry service from Bere Island to Castletownbere. Do we need further tragedies to bring home to the Minister what we endure in the west and southwest in earning a living? The Bardini Reefer is lying off the mouth of Castletownbere Harbour. It is a monument to the failure of successive Fianna Fáil Governments and this Coalition Government to remove it. There are super conger eels coming out of its hulk. The Government say they do not have the money to remove this wreck from the mouth of the second largest fishery harbour yet this Bill, introduced in haste, will enable £20 million to be spent on Dún Laoghaire harbour.

The Government failed to provide a proper pier at Whiddy Island, let alone finance a proper ferry service from the island, which suffered a major disaster 15 years ago. It failed to provide a decent pier at Baltimore for the Oileáin Cléire, the only ferry service for which the Government provides funds in the south-west. It failed to provide decent berthage at Baltimore Harbour for that service and financial aid to Kinsale Harbour Board to develop that port. The achievement of the Kinsale Harbour Authority shows what can be done through proper port management but the request for £400,000 was shelved by the Ministers for Marine and Finance.

The Government failed to provide funding for the extension of a pier at Ahakista at Dunmanus Bay to facilitate fishing and tourism. If we are logical about the development of tourism we must provide facilities for deep water fishing in such areas which are the gem of the west. The Government should fund an extension that would cost in the region of £200,000. The Minister has given a £20 million guarantee for a world renowned port but the Government failed to provide funding for the extension of the pier and marine project at Bantry although it is an ideally situated port and accommodated the Spanish Armada almost 500 years ago.

Mr. Gilmore

It was wrecked.

Ms Keogh

Did it reach that far?

Mr. Sheehan

An act of God created a storm that blew the Armada on the rocks and they had to abandon the idea of landing. Their intentions were good and they came to our aid when our backs were to the wall. Deputy Gilmore is happy because he is getting his share of the cake.

The Government failed to provide a decent pier and marina facilities in Crookhaven, the gem of the tourism industry in the Barley Cove area. Yet, at the stroke of a pen, the Minister can guarantee borrowing of £20 million for Dún Laoghaire Harbour. I agree with Deputy Gilmore that the Minister should withdraw the Bill immediately and rephrase it.

Mr. Gilmore

I never said that.

Mr. Sheehan

He should create a harbour authority in Dún Laoghaire. I am a member of the harbour Authority in Bantry Bay — a toothless Authority because it has no money except what it receives from port development, which is very little, as it does not have a proper pier. There is a ramshackle pier in the harbour. If the Minister wants proper management of Dún Laoghaire Harbour he should constitute a harbour Authority immediately. If that was done there would be no need for this legislation which is being put through the House with such haste that we hardly have time to digest its implications.

I appeal to the Minister not to advocate absolute powers for the Minister. Power must be delegated to the people who understand what Dún Laoghaire means to the area. Perhaps the Minister will withdraw the Bill and, if he will not accept an amendment, rephrase it to include that a harbour Authority is established immediately. If properly managed, Dún Laoghaire Harbour will generate finance to accommodate the extension. It is a viable proposition and has withstood the test of time. The Minister should listen to this side of the House and introduce such an Authority immediately.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

Many points were raised during the debate. I was amazed to hear Deputy Sheehan describe Dún Laoghaire as the Mecca of development through the years. I looked at the facilities in Dún Laoghaire and if the Deputy did so he would change his mind.

Mr. Sheehan

How many passengers came through the port in the last five years?

Dr. Woods

Rosslare is a fantastic port with wonderful facilities and I look forward to the day when Dún Laoghaire will have similar facilities. It is the central corridor. Slightly over 500,000 extra tourists will come through that port by the end of 1999. Many of these tourists will go to Castletownbere and west Cork but the people of Dún Laoghaire would like some of them to stay there and see the wonders in their area and around Dublin. Deputy Gilmore mentioned how this would generate employment, not only in Dún Laoghaire but in the surrounding area. Many people in Dublin could be employed and we would like to see tourists stay in the area. Deputy Sheehan's area will still get the lion's share of tourists and with the improvement of the corridor more of them will come his way.

The Deputy should not see Dún Laoghaire as competing with other ports. It is a busy port and various studies have shown its potential. We are trying to ensure that potential is realised.

Deputy Bradford and, I think, Deputy Gilmore asked what the Bill is about. It is basically a simple funding mechanism. Deputy Gilmore asked why the full harbour authority was not being established under the Bill. The harbour authorities should be set up later in the year after the relevant legislation is enacted. It is not proposed to rush through that legislation before the summer recess.

Mr. Sheehan

Why not introduce it now?

Dr. Woods

It is proving quite hard to get this simple funding mechanism enacted and I would hate to introduce at this stage the major legislation setting up the various harbour authorities which will require a good deal of consideration.

Mr. Sheehan

If the Minister gave a £20 million guarantee it would be very welcome in my part of the constituency.

Dr. Woods

I was involved in much of the preliminary work on that legislation and I am happy that it will be published later this year.

I could not agree with the points made about undue haste; the Bill cannot be enacted fast enough. All those concerned about Dún Laoghaire and its surrounding area should feel the same way. They know that the Bill is a simple funding mechanism. I will refer later to section 2, which is very easy to explain. There will be plenty of time to deal with this section in detail on Committee Stage. Obviously the Minister for the Marine, Deputy Andrews, would very much like to be present for this debate.

Mr. Sheehan

He is trying to score a goal across the ocean.

Dr. Woods

The Deputies from that constituency would obviously like him to be present for such an important debate. The value of this debate has been stressed by Deputy Sheehan.

In April 1991 the interim harbour board issued the draft harbour development plan. Following consideration of the various submissions the plan was finalised in April 1992. The ferry terminal development plan for the harbour is based on the board's plan which was presented to the Minister for the Marine in April 1992. However, it has been modified to accommodate the arrival of the new style ferries — the Sea Lynx and the HSS.

The main elements of the ferry terminal requirements include a dedicated berth to be provided for the HSS vessel, infilling an area of 1.5 hectares to provide additional operational area — due to new technology and the new HSS vessel this area is much smaller than that envisaged earlier — and improved passenger facilities. The current proposal for developing ferry terminal facilities at St. Michael's Pier has been considered in a wide ranging and extensive planning and consultative context. The development now proposed is in accordance with the broad planning objectives of both the 1992 harbour development plan and the 1991 Dún Laoghaire Borough development plan.

Deputy Keogh referred to the traffic issue and correctly said that the traffic would be more evenly spread out. The traffic issue was dealt with comprehensively in the environmental impact statement submitted as part of the planning process. The local authority has granted planning permission without onerous conditions. The outcome of the appeal to An Bord Pleanála is, of course, awaited.

The development proposed is designed to accommodate the HSS, the high speed sea service, which introduces a new thinking to the achievement of economies of scale and increased capacity in ferry operation by means of increased frequency of sailing rather than by the introduction of increasingly larger vessels. The vessel is about the same length as the Hibernia and Cambria and is approximately 20 metres wider. As at present, future ferry schedules will be designed to avoid the arrival of a vessel during the identified peak traffic hours for Dún Laoghaire — 8 a.m.-9 a.m. and 5 p.m.-6 p.m. The local authority applied a number of conditions to the grant of planning permission, requiring the Minister to make a financial contribution towards necessary improvements in the port access route to accommodate the extra traffic. Again without prejudice to the decision of An Bord Pleanála, these conditions will be complied with fully.

A number of Deputies referred to section 2. The purpose of section 2 and the definition of development in section 1 is to confirm and put beyond any doubt that the Minister for the Marine may carry out development works at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. This provision was included in the original Act. Doubts were expressed about some of the activities permitted on the sea bed. The legal advice was that it would be preferable on an occasion like this to tidy up this provision and ensure that its original intent is clear. It will put beyond doubt that the Minister may undertake works on or under the sea bed. This was always assumed to be part of the original Act. The legal advice available is that the Minister already has these powers in full. Nevertheless it was felt it would be prudent to ensure that any risks in this regard should be removed so that the Minister may, subject to planning permission, proceed with the business of developing the harbour. This is necessary in view of the major project envisaged and the financial and economic risks involved for the harbour, the State and the economy generally. In view of the size of the investment, we have to ensure that all these legalities are sound.

The provisions in sections 2 and 1 relate solely to Dún Laoghaire Harbour and not to other ports or the foreshore generally. People have suggested that the provisions in this respect are wider than those contained in the Bill. The reference to foreshore in section 1 is merely a convenient way of defining the sea bed area as distinct from land in Dún Laoghaire Harbour. I stress that these provisions do not relate to the planning process and do not change the rules in that regard. There is, therefore, no need to be concerned about these provisions.

The plan accentuates the multifaceted use of the harbour and sets out a number of characteristics to be preserved. First, Dún Laoghaire is to remain an attractive gateway for tourists and Irish residents. To remain attractive, the ferry operation must be provided with facilities consistent with the high standard on board ship and must be run on a commercial basis. Second, Dún Laoghaire harbour must be preserved as a valuable and pleasant amenity for the sailing community and the many other users of the harbour waters, with potential for much expanded use given better utilisation of water space, the provision of marinas and more public slipways. Third, the harbour must be preserved as an important amenity for the enjoyment of the citizens of Dublin who for generations have walked the piers and enjoyed the pleasant views within the harbour and across Dublin Bay. Fourth, it must be preserved as an attractive recreation centre for visitors to Dún Laoghaire and as an important facility for numerous miscellaneous users, including public services, anglers, naturalists, etc.

The ferry terminal development proposal is broadly in line with the 1992 harbour development plan. The Minister for the Marine is committed to facilitating the development of Dún Laoghaire recreational potential and is convinced that this can be achieved in harmony with a successful ferry service. The harbour board is at present advancing proposals for the development of recreational facilities in the harbour. As a first step, a sub-committee of the board has prepared a report on the development of the west harbour. The Department of the Marine will support the board in its task as far as possible.

The Bill now before the House is solely an enabling measure to provide for the establishment of an interim legal entity — the other board, which is representative of all interests and people remains — to fund development works outside the Exchequer. I stress "outside the Exchequer".

Mr. Sheehan

But guaranteed.

Dr. Woods

This Bill creates the right balance between the commercial interests of the harbour and minimising burdens on the taxpayer while at the same time maintaining full public scrutiny of all activities of the finance board. It is the intention that the assets and liabilities of the board be transferred to the State commercial company shortly to be established by the interim Dún Laoghaire Harbour Board.

The preparation of the Harbours Bill is well advanced and it is hoped to publish it shortly. In the meantime, all activities of the Dún Laoghaire Harbour Finance Board will be subject to full public scrutiny. All borrowings and expenditure by the board will be subject to the consent of the Ministers for the Marine and Finance. The annual accounts of the board will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and copies of the audited accounts will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Furthermore, I understand that the Committee of Public Accounts, under its terms of reference, may review any body whose accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Therefore, I can assure the House that adequate accountability arrangements will be in place.

I think I have covered most points raised by Members. I hope it is realised that this Bill really represents a mechanism to ensure that the funding arrangements can go ahead and that the other elements Members want to see in place will be put in place fairly soon, not merely in Dún Laoghaire but in each one of our main harbours. As far as tourism is concerned, it is expected to lead to over 500,000 extra tourists, which will be of great benefit to everybody and should be much welcomed by Members here.

I thank Members for their thorough presentation of views on this relatively simple, small Bill. If Members recognise that it is a very simple measure, that there is nothing hidden in it, I do not see why it cannot be taken tomorrow but that is a matter for the Whips.

Mr. Sheehan

Is it a forerunner of more to come in similar areas of the country?

Dr. Woods

There is plenty more to come. If ever we get half a chance we will blast the Bardini Reefer out of it at the earliest possible opportunity. I agree with the Deputy, that the sooner it is removed the better because it constitutes a most unfortunate blockage there.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Did I understand the Minister to say it is proposed to take Committee Stage tomorrow?

Dr. Woods

Yes, with the agreement of the Whips.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22 June 1994.