Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and I found his speech interesting. I intend, however, to oppose this Bill. It is completely unnecessary. I wish the Abbotstown sports campus every success but I fail to see what this new statutory authority, with all its bells and whistles, can do that the existing, perfectly adequate limited company cannot.

My opposition should not be seen as a protest against this project, I am enthusiastic about it, but I protest against the excessive proliferation of statutory authorities, supported by the full panoply of their own legislation and all that goes with it, that we have seen over the past decade. It is time for someone to shout "Stop" and since no one else seems to care, I will take on that responsibility. I have no objection to the notion of semi-State bodies as there will always be many things we want to happen under the aegis of the State but outside the smothering embrace of the Civil Service. The full panoply of a statutory body should be reserved for only the largest, most important and far-reaching of these activities.

For lesser matters, and I suggest this is one of them, less pretentious and expensive vehicles are available. There are many semi-State activities that can be carried out perfectly efficiently with a satisfactory level of public accountability through the vehicle of an ordinary limited company where the shares are owned by the sponsoring Minister. That is how the Abbotstown project has been handled until now and I doubt that has hampered its activities in any way. We could criticise some of the things that have happened in Abbotstown in the past few years, and I am sure much of this debate will be devoted to that, but if we are honest, we will admit that the difficulties arose not because of the nature of the corporate vehicle but because of the overly hasty and ad hoc manner in which the project was managed.

We should be concentrating on ensuring such mistakes are not made again. I see nothing in this Bill that will achieve that. A statutory body can be inadequately managed as easily as a limited company. I see no safeguards or quality controls in the mechanism proposed in the Bill that are a whit better than the existing safeguards in ordinary company law.

What do we think we are achieving by passing this Bill? Will it make the smallest difference to the young athletes of Ireland who will benefit from the campus in the years ahead? I doubt it. Will it make the smallest difference to the level of scrutiny by the Oireachtas of what goes on in our name at Abbotstown? I doubt it very much. It will produce an annual report that will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Does that mean either of these Houses will ever pay the least attention to the publication of the report? If the way we deal with the many hundreds of similar reports that clog our pigeon holes every year is any guide to it, the answer is "No".

The truth is that the only need satisfied by this legislation is that of self-aggrandisement. The title, National Sports Campus Development Authority, rolls nicely off the tongue and will look well on business cards. The costly annual report of the authority will be a glossy, state-of-the-art publication that no one will read. When I was chairman of An Post, there were only two shareholders, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Communications. I had a rule that there would be no photographs or colour in the annual report because only two people would read it. We produced annual reports that gave all the information on plain paper. Something has happened to make us think we must add to the costs and paraphernalia in such publications.

Is the production of such reports what we are about in this day and age? Over the last year, I have become involved in the better regulation movement, the aim of which is to cut back on the thicket of unnecessary rules and regulations that get in the way of people doing things. From a business point of view it makes sense because we have hindered our ability to be competitive by introducing regulations and costs that are unnecessary. Some countries have wiped them away. The President of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso, when he entered office, did away with 70 regulations that had been introduced in recent years. He said that they were slowing down Europe's competitiveness. We have got into the habit of adding costs and structures that are not needed. Under a regulation impact assessment, of which I have often spoken in this House, we hope to bring about a situation in which every new regulation, statutory instrument or law must be justified on the grounds of necessity and on the basis of a proper cost benefit analysis. I cannot help feeling that we should extend this concept to the likes of this Bill. There should be some mechanism that always asks a number of simple questions. Do we really need this? Does this Bill serve any useful purpose in advancing the march of the Irish people? If the answers to those questions is, as I believe in this case, a resounding "No", then a home for this Bill should be quickly found in the nearest waste paper basket. As I stated at the outset, I wish the Abbotstown project all the success in the world, but I will vote against the passage of this Bill, which is just a waste of the House's time, of effort and of the country's money.

I must be careful. I am an energetic enthusiast for sport and for what it can do for Ireland. I had the good fortune to attend the Olympic Games in Barcelona, Atlanta and Sydney. I can see the spur and the enthusiasm that is created by such events. After four days in Barcelona, I remember meeting some Americans who asked me how Ireland was doing in the Olympic Games. I replied that we had won four gold medals and one of them responded by asking, "That is okay, is it not?" I said, "Yes, that is since 1896." It had taken us 100 years to win them. We have won another four since then.

The enthusiasm that sport can create in the nation is well worth the Abbotstown project and the campus. What I am opposed to is the considerable backup of a statutory authority rather than an ordinary limited company. I hope the Minister will consider this point.