I want to refer to the inadequacy of the increase. The Minister said legislation is important and he can come in on occasions to review the situation. Senator Ferris said that SFADCo were always looked after well by this Government. They were looked after well by the previous Government also. Does the Minister consider for long term planning that the increase is adequate?
Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited (Amendment) Bill, 1986 (Certified Money Bill) : Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
Yes. The last discussion we had in the House on SFADCo was in 1983 on a similar Bill. It has not caused management any problems in relation to planning. They have submitted a plan for the year 1985-1989. There is no dichotomy between the fact that we are putting an enabling Bill in regard to capital grants, a grant-in-aid, before the House. That is on ongoing process. It happens quite regularly in relation to the IDA and CTT — I know that first hand in my own Department — and also in relation to Fóir Teoranta. These are merely capital limits that must be authorised. They must be established in law and when they are reaching the ceiling a Bill goes through the House.
This Bill is merely a mechanism to allow the Members of the Oireachtas the opportunity to review now and again the activities of a State body. That does not in any way interrupt, interfere with or hinder the planning process within a company and certainly not within SFADCo. They have already established a 1985-1989 planning programme. In regard to section 2 we are increasing from £120 million to £130 million the aggregate of the amounts which the Minister for Finance may subscribe in taking up shares in the company. At present he has taken up 91.6 million. I understand that the new limit will suffice up to and through 1990. That is four years ahead of us and in 1990 it will be possible to have a new Bill, to have a review of the company's affairs. That is all that is intended.
Senator Kiely just referred to something I said but he took it out of context. I recognised that there has always been a commitment of all Governments to SFADCo. I said that this is only an enabling Bill. No semi-State company can have a blank cheque from any Government. I said SFADCo were never precluded by this Government from doing anything they wanted to do. If the limits they had already set on them were close to expiration last year we would have brought a Bill in last year. It is being brought in now because we are close to the limits which were previously set in consultation with SFADCo. The consultations we have had with them now have set these limits for another period.
It could happen that in two year's time there will be a sudden economic boom in that area and that they need more money. I would hope that whatever Government are in office then will have the same facility available to them to come into this House to increase the, limits. As Senator Howard said, if we look at their report, this company have been prepared to take risks which have proved to be successful and all credit is due to them. They have also acted as catalysts. Because of the risks they have taken and the fact that they are catalysts, they come to us when they need money. We have always matched that challenge in this semi-State body and in any other. That is no political reflection on anybody. That was the only comment I made.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
Sittings suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.