Conflict of interest alleged in Minister's role on port

The Minister for the Marine has declined to respond to a suggestion that he is faced with a conflict of interest in deciding on Dublin Port's application to reclaim 52 acres of Dublin Bay.

Dr Woods is the State's nominee shareholder in the Dublin Port Company.

The suggestion was made by Mr Richard Bruton, the Fine Gael TD for Dublin North Central. In a statement, he said the application had exposed the "hopelessly undemocratic " procedures of the Foreshores Act.

According to Mr Bruton, only one month had been allowed for submissions from the public, and there had been no provision for either a public hearing on the application or for an appeal.

But the most serious issue, he said, was that the "final decision" on the application would be made by a Minister who was the sole shareholder in the sponsoring Dublin Port Company. "There is clearly a tension here between the commercial interests of the port company and the wider interest of preserving the amenities of the [Dublin] Bay.

"It is hard to conceive of a more direct conflict of interest than that between the role as shareholder and custodian of the wider public interest," Mr Bruton said.

He also criticised the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) associated with the project, which, he said, "takes for granted the commercial needs of the port company to plan for additional volumes of trade. It assumes that Dublin Port will further increase its market share of international trade. "However, it does not assess whether this is a desirable strategy in the context of regional development."

A spokesman for Dr Woods said the Minister had not yet given any indication of his thinking on the matter and would not be making any comment on the allegation of a conflict of interest.

The spokesman said, however, that Dublin Port was an independent company in which the Minister held his share on behalf of the State, just as many other ministers held shares in semi-state companies.

The spokesman added that he thought the criticism was premature in that the Minister had not given any indication as to what conditions might be considered. He maintained that as the EIS was commissioned from an independent consultant, the Minister could not be criticised over its coverage.