Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 May 2000

Vol. 518 No. 6

Priority Questions. - Port Development.

Michael Finucane

Ceist:

59 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources his views on the recommended option of the KPMG report on seaports in the Shannon Estuary where it was specified that the Shannon and Foynes Port Company would have its operational headquarters in Foynes and its administrative and commercial headquarters in Limerick; if he will confirm, in accordance with his statement at the press launch, that the headquarters for operations, commercial and administrative functions will be at Foynes, County Limerick; and the level of funding to be provided by him for the new Shannon and Foynes Port Company. [12896/00]

The KPMG report recommended that the location of the headquarters of the new single port company would be a matter for the new executive but that operational management should be located at Foynes, while Limerick should have the administrative and commercial responsibilities.

Following publication of the report, I, as shareholder, decided that certainty was required regarding where the headquarters and executive location for the new port company should be. Out of the combined business of the two companies the facilities over which the most business influence can be exerted by the new port company are at Foynes. In addition, the thrust of Government policy is away from centralisation in the major towns and cities. I explained this fully to the boards and management of the two port companies when I visited them recently.

As the Deputy is aware, I also recently announced the establishment of a five member implementation board to initiate the process of overseeing the transition to a new single port company. There will be close liaison between the implementation board and both port company boards and their successor advisory boards in order to ensure the smoothest possible transition to a new single port company structure. While the operational headquarters will be located at Foynes, the new single port company will need to have a presence at other port locations and facilities within the estuary. This is a matter which will fall to be determined by the implementation board following full and detailed consultations.

In relation to the question of funding, the consultant's report recommended an equity injection to ensure that the new company can trade and remain solvent This matter will be considered by the implementation board which will finalise fully developed and costed proposals and identify necessary levels of Exchequer funding in order to position itself to most effectively and efficiently discharge its functions.

A new Bill amending the Harbours Act, 1996, which I hope to place before the House in the near future will, inter alia, provide a mechanism to inject equity essential to the future of the port company. As a shareholder it is my responsibility to ensure that the State's port industry assets are deployed to best effect and that the business is competitive, responsive to customer's needs and operates on a sound financial footing. Above all, I want the estuary ports industry to be a focal point for development of the estuary as a whole and to deliver to the best extent possible on its potential.

I thank local Deputies from the locality in question, particular Deputy Finucane, for the constructive approach they have adopted. This matter has a long history and many issues remain to be resolved. However, the responsible approach to this matter taken by all Deputies, particularly that adopted by Deputy Finucane, is to be welcomed.

I thank the Minister for his comments. I am a native of Foynes which is the central location on the estuary and I welcome his clarification that not alone will it be the operational centre but that it will also house the commercial and administrative headquarters.

The report states that equity to the tune of approximately £5 million to £8 million will be provided. Is the Minister satisfied this level of equity would be sufficient to meet requirements? The report places great emphasis on Foynes' debts. The port has an urgent need for new equipment but I do not believe it would be sufficient if the Department proceeded to provide 50% of the funding in order that an additional crane could be purchased. In the current climate, 100% of the funding will be required. Is the Minister aware that the pension requirements at Limerick port, which has been the subject of under-investment, could amount to £3 million? Will the implementation board consider these matters in the context of the project's capital requirements?

At the Cabinet discussions on this matter, the Minister outlined the importance of the N69 route and also the access road into the harbour. Is he in a position to indicate whether the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has given a commitment to proceed with the construction of that access road in the near future? The level of investment required for this would be less than £3 million but it is an urgent priority. With regard to the announcement and its acceptance among the local community, people have displayed a level of goodwill in the past but this will evaporate if the access road to the harbour is not built.

In order to allay any fears or concerns of the harbour board employees, those who work both outdoors and indoors, will the Minister confirm that section 39 of the Harbours Act, 1996, will operate in respect of the new merged entity that will appear? Will he provide assurances that these people's jobs will not be threatened by the changes taking place?

The Minister has 30 seconds to reply.

With regard to the amount of money required, we have given the implementation board responsibility for finalising fully developed and costed proposals and identifying the level of funding that is required. I accept the Deputy's comments about the figures to which the KPMG report refers. However, it is now for the board to examine the matter in detail and come forward with proposals in respect of capital developments and with regard to shortfalls which may have occurred in the funding allocated for pensions and other matters.

The time allocated for this question has expired. We must proceed to Question No. 60.

The Minister has not answered my question about section 39.

The time has expired.

The powers which have applied up to now will also apply in the new situation. There will be a number of redundancies but it is hoped they will be voluntary.

I remind Members that we are governed by the rules of the House which place a limit of six minutes on all Priority Questions. We are now nearly one minute over that limit. I appeal to Members to be brief.

Barr
Roinn