I should like to say, first that for those of us who have proposed this motion it is gratifying to see that it has been universally accepted on all sides of the House. I note an acceptance of the priorities which are inherent to some extent in the wording of the motion, in that the first matter to be taken into consideration is agriculture and then tourism and thirdly the use of the river as a source of energy. While they are listed in that order I would not venture to say — I do not think any Senator would want me to say—that there is necessarily a great gap between the priorities but the agricultural priority must be the first one. It is quite clear that the waste to the country by having such an amount of land flooded is immense.
The Minister of State mentioned £70 million as being the possible cost but obviously that is a very tentative figure and in the absence of the report which this motion calls for it must be no better than a "guesstimate". But even taking it as it is, if we consider that there are, conservatively, 150,000 acres flooded and, as Senator Kitt said a loss of £80 to £100 an acre then, at £100 an acre that is a loss of £15 million per annum and at £80 an acre a loss of £12 million per annum, and if we translate the £15 million into the property developers' jargon based on a cost of £70 million it is a 4.5 years purchase. That is most attractive for any investor and I do not think the nation can any longer pass up the waste of an investment which can produce that tremendous and pretty immediate return. We talk about millions in departmental Estimates and at times of budgets and we are inclined to become blasé about millions and about hundreds of thousands. To anybody who would say, for instance that something would cost only £10,000, I say "Go out and earn £10,000 and see how difficult it is to get it." However, £70 million is a large sum of money in the perspective of modern budgets, but it is not a sum beyond possibility.
I want to contrast this with an announcement that was made during the week to spend £100 million in making Cork a more efficient city. I do not wish to engage in the politics of envy but I do not think for comparative purposes, and in the Parliament and the Executive deciding on priorities. one has to contrast this with the possible cost of £70 million to produce an annual income of up to £15 million by draining the Shannon. That is from agriculture only. Undoubtedly Cork requires this and it is money that will be well spent but essentially what it will do is to make Cork more efficient and undoubtedly as Cork becomes more efficient there will be a cost-benefit to the national economy. Again it is something that will be impossible to quantify. On the other hand, we have here in the context of the Shannon something which can be quantified quickly and easily and if there is to be a commitment to Cork of this vast sum, having regard to the debate that took place here, all sides must agree that the priorities would be wrong if that got priority over investment in the Shannon.
The question of tourism is of vital importance. There is no doubt that the tourist industry on the Shannon is still undeveloped. The report of the firm of consultants commissioned by Bord Fáilte who reported last year, Messrs Brady, Shipman and Martin, indicated that the number of boats on the Shannon could be considerably increased without in any way harming the attraction of the Shannon as a cruising waterway. The real attraction of the Shannon is that it is the last place in inhabited Europe where one can attain solitude. This is a very precious quality that has to be preserved and the consultants were conscious of this in preparing their report. They did indicate that it could be preserved with a considerable increase in the boats using the Shannon. If there is to be an increase in the number of boats using the Shannon, there will have to be a considerable increase in the facilities for them; mooring facilities, that is tying up places for overnight stops, jetty facilities at the shore and larger marina-type facilities.
If there is going to be investment in these facilities the point that Senator McCartin made is most relevant and most valid — that before people are invited to invest in these facilities a plan should be prepared for the Shannon lest the plan, when it is prepared. conflicts with the siting of the facilities and their presence either inhibits the implementation of the plan or the implementation of the plan wastes their investments. This is an extremely valid point and it adds urgency to the call that we are making here today. The plan must be prepared in advance of this greater investment in the Shannon lest that investment be misplaced or the new facilities wrongly sited. It adds to the urgency of this motion.
I do not want to rehash everything that was said, but it was common case among all the Senators that the motion should be passed. It was common case among all the Senators that control of the Shannon is required rather than drainage. The Shannon is so immense that the basic approach is not one of drainage. The Rydell Report indicated that control is what is required rather than drainage.
Control of the Shannon is urgent for the sake of the farmers living alongside it and its tributaries, for the sake of those engaged in tourism, and to make sure that the tremendous volume of water is efficiently harnessed to contribute to the State's energy needs. With respect to all of us who spoke here, the Minister's contribution was, when all is said and done, the one that really mattered. The rest of us were creating a climate to assist him in his battle for finance. His contribution, as an indication of his thinking on the matter was what we were all waiting for. He indicated that the first thing he did when he took office was to look up the files on drainage and, in particular, he examined the Shannon probleb. He expressed disappointment that no effort had been made to bring the reports which were on his files any further. Indeed, if he found lethargy in that direction he was entitled to be disappointed. It was heartening to hear of his disappointment while we might disagree with the reasons for it. His implication of lethargy and non-interest is not correct. He overlooked, as many people on the other side seem to overlook, the difficult financial time of the last few years when demands on funds were many and varied.
Be that as it may, it is heartening for us to find that the Minister was disappointed. I would expect the Minister to overcome that disappointment now by an approach to this problem which will be active, energetic and enthusiastic. That was what I expected to come from the Minister's speech. Unfortunately, his approach does not bear those characteristics and I greatly fear that his successor may be as disappointed when he looks back on the Minister's term.
The Minister went on to say that he estimated the cost of the further investigation which is now needed at £1 million. Then he said he was in the progress of looking for these funds. As the Minister has returned to the House I will inform him that I am speaking of my disappointment at the lack of energy and enthusiasm for draining the Shannon and of his disappointment at the lack of action that preceded him. I am expecting the Minister to approach this problem with energy and enthusiasm to undo the lethargy of the past.
I went on to say that the cost of further investigation would be about £1 million. The Minister said that he was looking for these funds, that he was exploring a number of avenues. Again, I find this disheartening and in the pattern of previous official statements with regard to problems concerning the control of the Shannon. It is in pattern totally and completely: great goodwill and great intentions but disappointing when a Minister of State — a member of a Government which was able to remove car tax with one stroke of the pen — says that he has to explore avenues looking for funds when the amount involved is £1 million.
I made the point earlier that we could become blasé and careless about millions but in the context of the national budget £1 million is a very small sum. I do feel slightly embarrassed at talk about going to Europe with hand out to get this comparatively paltry sum to do this work. I would ask the Minister to influence his colleague in Finance, and whatever other colleagues may be involved nowadays in deciding how the country's finances are to be spent, to get this £1 million as a matter of high priority. The Government should read the call from all sides of this House for action to control the Shannon. What is wanted, initially, is a report. If it takes £1 million to get that report under way, I would expect the Minister to say to us with confidence "I will have that money in next year's Estimates; that report will be commissioned next year". I am surprised and disappointed and somewhat shocked and frightened that the Minister is not able to make that commitment.
This afternoon I saw a banner headline in the Evening Press from under a newsboy's arm to the effect that the “Exchequer pursestrings were being tightened”. I put this down as an evening paper headline and gave it the credence it deserves.
When I hear the Minister of State say that he is looking for funds, that he is exploring a number of avenues to get £1 million, I begin to get a little apprehensive about the national finances. I hope I am wrong and I would urge the Minister, even if they are tight——
