Unfortunately due to circumstances I was unable to contribute on Second Stage but what I would say in general terms would be covered by section 2, which makes provision for an increase in the amount that the Minister for Finance may subscribe in taking up shares in the company and which therefore covers all activities or possible activities of the company.
This is the first debate in this House specifically on this company since early 1978 when we had a livelier debate than appears to have been the case today. I put forward some proposals which were the subject of very considerable criticism in this House and elsewhere, particularly in the region, and it is gratifying to me as a mere human to read some of the figures given by the Minister today which were achieved as a result of the policy change made in 1977 and 1978. That is now five-and-a-half years ago and it is time there was another major shake-up of this company. One of the reasons I felt it was necessary at that time was that the company had got into something of a rut. They had been doing the same thing for quite a long time, admittedly successfully enough. It is important that both small and large State companies should have to rethink their position or have somebody rethink it for them at suitable decent intervals like five or six years. This is a suitable decent interval.
Although it was not adverted to today by the Minister of State, I understand there is something of a shake-up going on and this time it is self-generated by the company. This is a good thing. It is a pity the Minister of State did not go into this matter in more detail. I simply advert to the fact that it is happening and it is causing certain tensions within the company. That, in my experience, is a good thing. It will get that company back to looking at realities again in a vivid way and I feel they will respond on this occasion as they did in 1977 and 1978.
There is a danger always with State companies that the company itself, its very existence and the welfare of those who are in it will begin after a period to become superior to the purpose for which it was founded. We have all seen it happen in other companies and it is good that it is not the case in this company.
If there is any one objective to which this company should address itself at this stage of its existence and in the circumstances of the region it services it is the whole question of the Shannon Estuary and its development. It is tragic that the estuary is as relatively underdeveloped as it is. The airport has existed for close on 40 years but there is inevitably something slightly artificial about the airport. It has been preserved and will be preserved, but there is a certain artificiality about it from which one cannot get away. There is no artificiality about the finest deep water natural harbour in western Europe. God put that estuary there; Seán Lemass or whoever put the airport there. Seán Lemass's work could be undone by circumstances but God's work will never be undone. If I were Minister for Industry and Energy at present I would tell the company — and if necessary bring in enabling legislation — that their task is to tackle that estuary, develop it and make it in practice what it is by nature, the finest deep water port in Europe. If we as a nation fail to develop that most valuable asset, we have only ourselves to blame for a lot of the problems we face today.
Unhappily there are many jurisdictional disputes going on in relation to the estuary. We had the standard pat reply from the Minister of State today when he said that it is really a matter for the Department of Transport. It does not matter a damn what Department are supposed to deal with it. Are we so insular in our thinking that we have to keep fobbing off a problem or, in this case, an opportunity from one Department to another, each saying that technically it is the responsibility of another Department? We will make no progress if we continue to think on those lines.
As a first step towards the development of that estuary I made an effort over a couple of years to get the various harbour authorities to co-operate and there is a long, sorry history to it. I failed to get one of them to co-operate. I got other able people to try and they failed too. There is only one way that the development will come about and that is by the Government as a whole, not just one Department or one Minister, taking the problem by the scruff of the neck and saying "Look, if you do not agree we will bring in legislation and it will be law whether you like it or not and you had better agree". That is what I put to them in 1981 but a general election was held and the Government changed and they breathed a sigh of relief. When I was back in Government I was not there long enough to do anything towards bringing the matter to fruition.
That is the approach that should be agreed across the floor of the House, that irrespective of which of us are in Government in the next three or four years we will see this thing through, that some small parochial objection will not be allowed to stand in the way of a major national development that will benefit not just the region but the entire country. It will bring business and traffic into the country to an extent not known up to now and it will generate an enormous number of jobs and very considerable commercial and industrial activity. I think we could agree that simple matter across the floor of this House and not allow some very small local, unelected body to stand in the way of that type of progress.
There is a somewhat unhappy history of the efforts made by numerous people to bring about unity in the estuary, which looked like coming to fruition in March 1977 when a Bill was published. Unfortunately the Bill which was published by the then Minister for Transport and Power did not reflect the agreement that had been reached after laborious negotiations during several previous years between the parties involved. In particular, it sought to undermine the position of one of the authorities concerned and as a result, that authority has been reticent — one might almost say obstructive — since then. It is not fair to blame that authority as if there was no background to the whole business. The authority were badly treated. People gave their word to them and they entered into an agreement, but people other than those at Foynes broke their word. That is why Foynes has been so unenthusiastic in recent years. It should be explained to those people that there will not be a repeat of what happened at the beginning of 1977, that agreements reached will be honoured, that a Minister will not change an agreement behind closed doors as a result of certain local pressure and that a Bill, as agreed, will be implemented. That would be an important stage, but only one stage.
In a region as divided in terms of counties, local authorities and harbour boards as is the mid-west region and the Shannon Estuary what is needed is a slightly independent body to act as a catalyst and SFADCo are the ideal catalyst in this situation. There is a limit to what that body can do in the airport, with regard to industrial development in the estate and in relation to the development of small industries, although they have not reached that limit by any means. They need a task to which there is no foreseeable limit, which will be a major benefit to the country and which will confer enormous advantages to the entire nation. That task should be given to them. It should not be looked at in a compartmentalised, departmentalised way by Departments. It should be looked at by the Government as a whole, who recognise this outstanding natural asset and who want to develop it for the benefit of the country. I suggest to the Minister of State that this is an opportunity that should be taken. We can indicate agreement across the floor of the House, that, irrespective of whatever changes in Government may take place in the months and years ahead, a programme of the kind broadly outlined by me will be followed through. It will inject tremendous vigour into the area and will re-inject vigour into the company which is the subject of this debate. It will give them a real worthwhile national challenge to pursue.
On the question of urban renewal, which was dealt with by the Minister and which is paid for under moneys authorised in section 2, I am pleased at the success of the work undertaken by the development company in Limerick city. This was done jointly with the corporation at my suggestion some years ago and I am happy to have seen it come to fruition. The work which has been done in the Granary is worth inspection by any Member of this House who wishes to see what can be done with the restoration of an important old building, not just as a museum piece but as a living commercial entity. I would like to think that the Kilkenny Design Workshops, particularly after the passage of recent legislation, might be in a position to help more positively.
