When I moved the Adjournment of the debate on this Bill I was about to elucidate to the House how the Government arrived at a decision in relation to the relocation of the headquarters of the proposed development corporation. A very interesting scenario developed when the Minister for Defence was in Australia on official business. His colleague from Limerick West, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, was in Dublin and the Government made a decision in relation to the location of the corporation. Why was that decision made at the Government meeting? That is something I cannot answer. One can only conclude that the Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, did a certain amount of arm twisting in the absence of his colleague to get this headquarters located at Foynes. Not alone did he pull a smart stroke on his colleague in west Limerick, he then proceeded, behind the back of his colleague, the Minister for the Marine, two days in advance of the announcement of the proposed location of the headquarters, to announce that it was to be located in Foynes. Since then the Minister for Justice has been touring his constituency telling the people of Foynes about the tremendous job opportunity this decision will bring to the Foynes area and the enormous number of people who will be employed, raising false hopes in west Limerick.
This is very irresponsible behaviour on the part of a Government Minister. It is irresponsible to act in such a fashion and to mislead the local population. This Bill clearly states that the staffs of the existing authorities in Limerick, Foynes and Kilrush will all be absorbed under this legislation. If these people are to be employed, where is the tremendous potential for job opportunities? The reality is there is none. The Minister for Justice is bluffing in west Limerick and it is time to call his bluff.
Indeed, two or three years ago when the then Minister, Deputy Mitchell, introduced a Bill the present Minister strongly objected in this House and through the media that Foynes did not want to become involved in any type of estuarial authority. How come the Minister has changed his mind so quickly in relation to this matter? How is it that there is such a sudden conversion? One would have to seriously question the judgment of the Minister if he is so quick to change his mind when he appeared to hold such strong views just over two and a half years ago.
The headquarters are supposed to be in Foynes. This is very unusual. This is just a sop and now the Minister is trying to justify his support of the inclusion of the Foynes Harbour Commissioners in the overall development corporation by the Shannon Estuary.
When I spoke in the House the last time, I outlined in detail my attitude to the overall Bill. At this point I would like to go through the Bill section by section. The title of the Bill is "Harbours (Shannon Estuary Development Corporation) Bill". We already have a development company in the region in the form of SFADCo, Shannon Free Airport Development Corporation. That semi-State organisation has responsibility for development of industry and tourism in the region. Here we are talking about a development corporation with similar responsibilities in many areas. Section 4 deals basically with the functions of the corporation and gives them functions, such as investment in marine related industrial, tourist, recreational and amenity facilities, such investment to be in activities to be carried out in or adjacent to the waters of the Shannon Estuary. It goes on to talk about promoting and assisting to develop the use of the corporation's functional area by commercial and trading enterprises for such activities as are likely to increase the use of that area for activities of a marine related nature. The only part I feel directly relates to a Harbours Bill is section 4 (1) (c) which states that the Harbours Bill is:
to manage, maintain, operate and develop the existing harbours,
and I would go further and say to develop additional harbours if the business of that waterway requires such further development. I believe that additional function to be an overlap of the responsibilities of semi-State companies that already have control in that area. There could be confusion and it is unfortunate that this extended function is included in this Bill.
In section 3 the Minister talks about the establishment of the body corporate. We find out the basic details as to how that body will be formed and there are legal details in relation to that section.
In relation to section 4 (3) I am very concerned about the overall position of the estuary and the application of the Structural Funds to estuary development and how SEDCo will co-operate with SFADCo in regard to submissions for Structural Fund grants. There could be serious complications there. Section 4 (3) states:
Nothing in subsection (1) (b) of this section shall empower the Corporation to provide financial assistance, or to subsidise in any other way, projects for facilities which may be undertaken or provided by any other body in the Corporation's functional area, or otherwise to carry out functions assigned by statute to any other body.
If SFADCo feel that they have a valid application to make for financial assistance from the European Structural Fund, how do they do it? The Bill says that nothing here shall empower the corporation to provide financial assistance or to subsidise in any other way. This is very confusing and could lead to a hindrance of development of ports, which is what this Bill should be encouraging, and add to the bureaucratic layer of trying to process this and get it cleared by SFADCo. This process would not lead to efficient, quick overall development and it is something the Minister must look at very closely in reconsidering that section.
Section 4 (4) states:
The Corporation shall not, when carrying out any of its functions referred to in subsection (1) (a) or (1) (b) of this section, incur expenditure (including borrowing) without having—
(i) satisfied itself that any proposed investment is capable of achieving a commercially acceptable rate of return on capital employed, taking account of all possible costs and potential risks,
One would have to question how this will operate because we are talking about appointing a board, and it is not clear that there will be members on that board capable of making the decision that this subsection requires, particularly in relation to port development. This is a weakness in this subsection.
Subsection (4) (ii) relates to seeking the prior consent of the Minister in relation to borrowing in excess of £200,000. That is a very small amount of money when one views the cost involved in the structural development of ports. I keep referring to development of ports because it is a serious concern for the Shannon Estuary. That figure is rather restrictive.
Section 5 gives a clear definition of what the functional area of the Bill is. It is just the Shannon Estuary area. As a representative from County Clare I would like to say that Clare County Council are particularly concerned about this Bill and the responsibilities that this Bill could indirectly place on it because Clare County Council is the one local authority that has a very extensive shoreline on to the estuary from Loop Head almost to Limerick City. We are talking about 90 miles of shoreline. Clare County Council are concerned about the extra costs and responsibilities they could incur as a local authority providing the essential infrastructure in that area in terms of roads, water and sewerage, without giving them any definite say on the proposed corporation.
