Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Mar 1945

Vol. 96 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 56—Transport and Meteorological Services.

I move:—

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £9,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1945, for Transport and Meteorological Services.

Additional sums are required under a number of sub-heads on this Vote. The first is in respect of payment for steamer services. As the House is aware, the steamer service between Galway and the Aran Islands is subsidised by the State, and during the emergency, because of the higher price of coal and less frequent sailings, a substantial loss upon that service has accrued, which was not offset by the amount voted in the subsidy. During the course of this year a position arose in which additional money had to be made available to the company operating the service, or they would have to stop it, although authority had been given by various Orders to the company to enable it to increase freights. The amount of the subsidy was fixed by the Aran Island Transport Act, 1936. It was necessary to make a temporary amendment of that Act by an Emergency Powers Order, to permit additional subsidy being made available. The service, of course, is essential to the people resident on the Aran Islands, and the £700 which is asked for, in addition to the original subsidy of £300, will merely meet the loss on working the service during the present year.

It was not a loss caused by the price of coal?

The higher cost of coal and the curtailment of the service.

Were the rates increased?

There was a first increase of 25 per cent. and a further increase of 20 per cent. A number of the smaller harbour authorities had their sources of revenue dried up by reason of the stoppage of cross-Channel steamer services. In some cases some essential maintenance works could not be undertaken because these harbour authorities had no revenue. During the course of last year the Government decided that where a local authority in an adjoining area was willing to make a contribution to the cost of maintaining these harbours, the Government would also make a contribution. Under that arrangement applications for assistance were received from a number of harbours and, in some cases, they have been granted. In the case of Galway Harbour, a grant of £1,000 has been approved, half the estimated deficit for the year 1944. The Galway County Council have agreed to contribute towards the deficit from its funds. The amount which will be paid to the harbour authority will be £715, the balance being held until the actual deficit of the year has been more definitely ascertained. There was also an application from the Wexford Harbour Commissioners and in their case approval has been given for a grant not exceeding £718, the Wexford Corporation and the Wexford County Council having agreed to strike a rate to make good the balance required to defray the harbour deficit. In that case payment of £580 has been made and the balance will be retained until the audited accounts for the year are available. In the case of the Ballina Harbour Authority a grant not exceeding £480 for the deficit of the year has been approved and the Mayo County Council have agreed to make a contribution, although the precise amount of its contribution has not yet been decided.

Applications have been received from the Westport Harbour Commissioners, but in their case the execution of constructional works is necessary, and before any recommendation could be made as to the work to be done a detailed survey is necessary and arrangements have been made to have that detailed survey carried out by an engineer of the Board of Works. Application was also received for assistance under this arrangement from the Tralee and Fenit Harbour Commissioners, but the application in that case has not yet been decided, so that no expenditure will arise in consequence of it in this financial year.

The other sub-heads of the Supplementary Estimate relate mainly to airports and air services. The additional travelling expenses were due mainly to accountancy problems such as the accumulation of certain arrears of allowances payable to radio staff at the Dublin Airport and expenses incurred in the use of taxi vehicles for the transportation of staff from Limerick to Rineanna. In connection with the Shannon Airport, bus services had to be provided for the staff now working at Foynes. As the House is aware, there has been a substantial development at Foynes, which involved the bringing into that area of a large number of officials of one kind or another, officials of the Government or of the air operating companies. There was no housing accommodation in Foynes for them and; under present circumstances, that housing accommodation could not be provided. The problem was met by the provision of special bus services from Limerick so that the position is that a large number of the staff employed at Foynes reside in Limerick and are transported to and from Foynes by this special bus service every day. During the course of the year it became necessary to provide a helper bus on that route and additional expenditure was incurred on that account. Now that staff is being employed at the Rineanna Airport, it is necessary also to provide a bus service from Limerick to Rineanna. There are plans for the construction of hostel accommodation as well as ordinary housing in the vicinity of the Rineanna Airport, but for the present the staff employed there must reside in Limerick and be transported by bus.

Is it staff belonging to this country?

The staff at Rineanna is, in the main, staff of the Department of Industry and Commerce, but there would, of course, be officials of the operating companies there as well. Deputies will note that there was a substantial loss in the catering service at Foynes. That loss will not be a recurring loss. The catering service was established in this year and substantial expenditure was incurred in ensuring that there would be available at Foynes restaurant and catering accommodation as good as existed at any airport anywhere. I am sure the House will agree with the decision taken to ensure, by incurring whatever expenditure was necessary, that no complaint could be made as to the adequacy and standard of the catering accommodation at Foynes. The circumstances under which these air services operate at the moment, however, make it impossible to operate the catering service there without loss. Services are irregular. The arrival of planes carrying passengers cannot be made known publicly at any substantial period in advance of their arrival. The planes frequently come in late at night or early in the morning, but the services must be always ready to cater for them. In normal circumstances, with greater regularity of traffic and the better circumstances that might be expected to exist in peaceful conditions, it is anticipated that the catering service there can be run without loss. In the meantime, however, it is desired to maintain the standard of the service, and, on that account, the State has undertaken the responsibility of meeting any loss that may occur.

It is necessary to provide an additional £3,500 under the sub-head of Subsidy for Air Services. The reason for that additional subsidy is the fact that our air service was suspended for a substantial period last year by the British authorities, for security reasons, prior to the commencement of military operations in Western Europe. The fact that the service was completely grounded during these months increased the loss upon it and makes it necessary to provide an additional subsidy at this stage.

The total amount required, as the House will see from the paper circulated, is £16,555. There have, however, been savings upon other sub-heads amounting to £7,555, so that the net total of the Supplementary Estimate is £9,000, the amount now sought.

Can the Minister tell us whether that loss on catering is a net loss on catering only, or does it involve expenditure on equipment?

It would include this year a substantial expenditure on equipment.

Have we provided permanent housing accommodation there for catering?

Could the Minister give us any information regarding the gross revenue from Foynes and Rineanna and gross expenditure? Could he give us the net loss incurred in running both airports?

I do not think it would be in order now to embark on a wide discussion, but would the Minister consider laying the terms of the recent agreement on the Table of the House? As far as I can see, we are on the eve of fairly big air developments. I suppose before anything will be undertaken the House will be informed, but, except for the publication through the Press, the terms of the agreement have been kept from the ordinary people.

On a Supplementary Estimate one can only deal with the object for which the money is specifically and particularly asked.

These matters are incidental.

With regard to the query by Deputy Hughes, the loss upon the service is the amount of the subsidy provided, that is, the original amount voted plus the additional amount now required. That represents the whole loss on the service, which is met by Government contribution.

Can the Minister say what that amount is?

It is set out on the paper. The total of the two sums would be the loss upon the service. The general agreement which was concluded at the Chicago Air Conference cannot be brought into effect so far as this country is concerned until ratified by the Dáil. There will, therefore, be an occasion upon which air policy as a whole can be discussed when the appropriate resolutions are submitted.

With regard to the bus service, was there a restricted service or was it for general use?

The service was restricted to persons employed in connection with the air services. There was an extension subsequently to enable other persons engaged at work in Foynes to use the service.

Was there sufficient to fill the bus?

The bus was crowded every day. We had to provide a helper bus to carry all that were to be carried.

In connection with the harbour authorities, I think the Minister mentioned that applications were received from five harbour boards for assistance. I assume that there are other applications which he did not read out.

No. May I explain that the Government's offer of assistance is conditional, first of all, upon the harbour authority having no revenue at the present time from the ships of Irish Shipping Limited? The ships of Irish Shipping Limited are serving only the larger harbours, and they have revenue from that service. Therefore, these harbour authorities are excluded from the proposal. Secondly, it is conditional on the local authority in the adjoining area being willing to contribute from the rates half of the cost of maintenance. If there is a contribution from the local rates, the Government provides the other half. The only applications we have had in which these conditions are complied with are those mentioned.

One of the conditions of the grant is that the local authority will contribute?

An amount somewhat corresponding?

It is a fifty-fifty proposition.

Under sub-head C, I notice that the expenditure will not be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Will the Minister explain that?

Under the terms of the Act, the amount is given by way of a Grant-in-Aid to Aer Lingus Teoranta, which operates the air service.

I do not think the Minister was quite correct in saying that the net loss is represented by the subsidy. Does not the gross amount we are voting represent the gross loss?

Not necessarily. There are revenues, of course, resulting from the operations of the air companies.

They would be Appropriations-in-Aid?

No. In the case of the Dublin Airport, it is, of course, maintained by Aer Rianta, Teoranta. In the case of the Shannon airport it is maintained by the Department of Industry and Commerce, so that there will be a different treatment in each case.

Will the cost of the road service to the Shannon airport have to be borne entirely by the State?

The problem was not to get the road service provided but to get it provided at a cost which would not be too heavy for the officers who had to use it. The normal return fare every day would be far too heavy a contribution to expect them to make and, consequently, the necessity for a subsidy arises out of the decision to provide that transport at lower than the economic cost.

Is the amount of the subsidy to be borne by the State?

It is borne entirely by the State.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share