Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Oct 2003

Vol. 571 No. 4

Other Questions. - Harbours and Piers.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

118 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the reason the funding committed for the erection of a new pier at Bantry has not been provided; and if he will make a full statement in relation thereto. [21869/03]

The primary reason I have not made a decision regarding the provision of Exchequer funding for this project is that I am awaiting advice from the Attorney General on various legal issues pertaining to the pier development. As the Deputy will be aware, my predecessor pledged Exchequer support of up to €1.65 million towards a new pier development at the port as outlined in the Proposed Development Plan 1997 of the Bantry Bay Harbour Commissioners. My predecessor intimated at that meeting that he would be prepared to provide up to €1.9 million if necessary, but in the event that the project exceeded €1.9 million the harbour commissioners would have to provide the additional funds from their own resources.

The commitment from my predecessor was to be paid from the Department's Vote and was not a commitment for funding under the national development plan. The harbour commissioners subsequently updated their estimate of the cost for the development to €6.54 million and, in light of this significant increase in the estimated price, the harbour commissioners applied for funding under the seaports measure of the NDP. Under the Harbours Act 1946, a harbour authority is required to seek the Minister's consent for any financial commitment in relation to infrastructural works.

In August 2002, it was belatedly brought to the attention of my Department by the harbour commissioners that they had entered into a contract in respect of the pier development. The harbour commissioners were subsequently advised that, pending clarification on all financial issues relating to the project, the contractors were not to proceed with the project or incur any additional expenditure. As I stated at the beginning of my reply, advice has been sought on various legal issues pertaining to the pier development and a response is awaited from the Attorney General in this regard.

Why have the papers been with the Attorney General for the past 15 months? Is it for the purpose of parking the file there to ensure the Minister can welch on commitments made by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to the people of Bantry? Is he not aware that €1.9 million was legally committed in the year 2000 towards this pier contract of €6.5 million? Is he not aware that, in the days before the general election, a further €1 million was committed politically by the then Minister for the Marine under the national development plan? Taking all those circumstances into account, is the Minister not aware that the contract which was signed by Bantry Harbour Commission is now held up? Apparently, the Minister is trying to welch on the agreements made. He is trying every possible tactic to wriggle out of the legal and political commitments given in respect of this pier. Some honesty would be appropriate for the people of Bantry because it is now clear that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats Party lied to them about the funding that would be made available. Will the Minister display a modicum of honesty about the project and tell those people what the situation is? This pier is needed and the funds were committed to it, but the Minister has made every effort since he took office to wriggle out of the commitment to provide the necessary money. It is time to stop fooling about with this project.

I am not trying to wriggle out of anything, I am trying to get legal advice on the position I am obliged to follow under the law. It is the case, and the harbour commissioners know this, that under the Harbours Act, the harbour authority is required to seek the Minister's consent for any financial commitments on infrastructural works. It was made clear in correspondence with the harbour commissioners that no commitment should have been made to commence work or incur costs until the Minister and the Minister for Finance had seen and approved the operating agreement proposed. We were belatedly notified that a contract had been entered by the harbour commissioners. They should have received my consent and the consent of the Minister for Finance to proceed on the basis of the ultimate estimate, which was much greater than originally proposed. I assure the Deputy that if the Attorney General's advice is such that we have to proceed, we will do so.

Is the Minister aware that there has already been a draw down from the original €1.9 million grant? What is the Minister talking about in relation to the legality of the contract? On foot of that contract, €660,000 was expended by the Bantry Harbour Commission and it drew down some of the money from the first grant. How can the Minister now question the legality of the contract into which Bantry Harbour Commission entered when it was done solely on the basis of the commitments given by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources? It is an outrage that the Minister is trying to wriggle out of the contract.

What legal advice is he seeking? Is he trying to find an avenue to escape the financial and legal commitments made to the people of Bantry? Why is he hiding behind the Attorney General, who apparently has had the papers since July 2002? What game is the Minister playing? Will he answer the first question I put. Is it not time to display a modicum of honesty to the people of Bantry on this project?

I am endeavouring to get the Attorney General's advice on whether there are legal commitments. The Deputy says there are legal commitments but that is his opinion.

The Minister paid money on the basis of those commitments.

I am subject to the advice of the Attorney General in this matter.

He does not think much of the Minister if he sits on the advice.

A payment of £73,000 was made in December 2001 in respect of an invoice.

He has not even been up a pole.

The Deputy would be the first man to object if we did not pay the invoice for the investigation of the project. We did not pay in relation to the specifics. The harbour commissioners submitted invoices totalling €440,000 but no payments were made in respect of them.

More broken promises.

I emphasise that in the correspondence sent to the harbour commissioners and to people representing them, it was stated that no commitment in relation to any infrastructural work should be made. They went ahead and commenced the work and then belatedly informed the Department.

The Department was fully aware.

That is standard in any contract. The Deputy may have done otherwise while he was in Government but we will not do that.

They commenced the contract on the basis of commitments given by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources.

Top
Share