Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1960

Vol. 179 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Cross-Channel Shipping—Motion.

Mr. Russell

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann, being of opinion that it is not in the national interest that cross-Channel shipping should remain almost exclusively under foreign control, requests the Government to institute, as a matter of urgency, an investigation into the whole position with a view to securing that a substantial proportion of the Cross-Channel trade shall be brought under Irish control."

At the outset, in dealing with this motion, I should like to make some reference to the history and development of cross-Channel shipping over the years. As a maritime nation, Ireland has all the advantages of her geographical position. She also suffers from the disadvantages in that she must import virtually all the essential raw materials she lacks; in the main, these have to be delivered by sea transport and practically all the exports which she needs to maintain national solvency must be carried in ships from her shores.

The present pattern of cross-channel shipping can be traced from the developments which took place from the early years of the 19th century onwards. These were the years of the industrial revolution in England with its consequent demand for cheap Irish labour and cheap Irish agricultural produce. In exchange Ireland secured British manufactured goods and raw materials, especially coal, for her increasing urban population and for her limited industrial development. The military occupation of the country and the preponderance of British influence at the time set the seal on the position which exists to-day.

A century and a half later the movement of Irish workers to England to build factories, roads and railways extended the movement of passengers by sea and the subsequent exchanges of mail. The personnel and supplies were shipped back and forth across the Channel. The service of military forces stationed in Ireland and the growing army of urban workers in England, this type of traffic proved an attractive proposition to enterprising investors of whom the vast bulk were British due to the lack of adequate capital and business influence amongst Irish nationals. Those who could and did invest were subsequently bought out or forced out and contracts for the carriage of mail and goods were awarded to loyal subjects. Thus from the earliest days the carriage of goods across the Irish sea was consolidated in non-national hands.

The improvement in rail and road facilities around the middle eighteen hundreds rendered uneconomic the small ports particularly in the West of Ireland which had been developed to service the needs of local areas through the media of small sailing ships. This gave rise to further centralisation which has developed to such an extent that to-day four ports handle over eighty per cent. of our trade, the remainder being shared by the other ports and the air companies. The same four ports to-day handle over ninety per cent. of the seaborne trade and the decline in the imports of coal and grain over the past thirty years has further resulted in the consolidation of trade between England and Ireland through the east coast ports.

The introduction of steam propulsion had a profound effect on cross-Channel shipping. The railway companies saw the advantages of coordinated rail and sea traffic for passengers, goods and mail. They built suitable ships, developed the necessary ports and gradually ousted the smaller companies which lacked the essential capital or influence. To-day British Railways are the inheritors of several smaller shipping companies which once linked Ireland, Britain and the Continent.

At present there are eight companies operating a wholetime liner service between the Republic and the cross-Channel ports. All are British-owned save one. In the case of two, their ships are registered under the Irish flag. Four of the companies are in the Coast Lines group and two are independent. The biggest of the lot is, of course, British Railways which services four ports and operates many passenger and cargo craft. These companies were formed during the first half of the last century.

This combination of British concerns operates cargo services to the four main ports of the east coast, Drogheda, Dundalk, Dublin and Rosslare, and two main ports in the South, Waterford and Cork. These services handle three-quarters of our exports and one-quarter of our imports. No British company provides a service on the West coast of Ireland where 5 per cent. of the country's total trade is handled between the six principal ports there and, further, none of the British companies concerned operates on a route covered by one or other of its competitors.

This network of foreign-owned shipping services is so completely and closely knit that all efforts by outsiders to enter the field have failed. The vested interest created by privilege has continued down the years to the great disadvantage of the Irish economy. The growth of the railways on both sides of the Channel in the second quarter of the nineteenth century raised problems connected with the through transport of goods between the different systems. At the outset it was the practice of certain companies to come together voluntarily to secure the provision of through facilities for traffic. Eventually in 1864 it was decided to form the first cross-Channel Conference, namely, the Irish Traffic Conference to deal with livestock and goods traffic. During the years that have passed since 1864, a number of these conferences have been formed, have failed and have been re-formed. In 1867 the Irish and English Traffic Conference was formed. In 1870 the Irish Cattle Traffic Conference was formed. In 1874 the South of Ireland Traffic Conference was formed. These three conferences continued until 1914 when they were replaced by the Irish and English Livestock Conference. In 1950 the Irish and English Goods Traffic Conference was formed. This continued for a number of years and in 1925 were added to by the Scottish and Irish Traffic Conference. In 1937 a certain amount of consolidation took place and the Irish and English Traffic Conference was formed. This continued up to 1951 when the present Irish and British Traffic Conference was formed.

Mr. Haughey

Is this not all in the Report of the Commission?

Mr. Russell

Some indication of the reduction in the number of steamshipping, railway and canal companies can be gauged from the numbers which formed the various traffic conferences over the past 35 years. In 1915, there were 17 steamshipping companies, 28 railway companies and one canal company, a total of 46 companies in all.

In 1937 this total had fallen to less than half of which the number of steamship companies had been reduced to nine and the number of railway companies to 12. In 1958 when the Tribunal was set up to inquire into the position of cross-channel rates, there were only 12—eight steamship companies and four railways. The number of railway companies has since been reduced by one by the passing out of operation of the Great Northern Railway. The present cross-channel Conference is composed of the British Transport Commission, the British and Irish Steamship Company and their subsidiary, the Cork Steamship Company, the Burns and Laird Line and the Limerick Steamship Company, which is the only one registered in the State, the Clyde Shipping Company, the Belfast and Manchester Steamship Company, C.I.E., the Isle of Man Company, the Ulster Transport Authority and the Wexford Steamship Company.

Some indication of the importance of the cross-channel trade is indicated by the following figures: In 1938 the total inward and outward trade amounted to 921,000 tons. In 1950 it amounted to 870,000 tons and in 1957 it amounted to 864,000 tons. A breakdown of the exports for 1957 indicates that livestock accounted for almost 35 per cent. of the total exports. The Coast Lines and their associated companies got 56 per cent. of the total trade, the British Transport Commission got 25 per cent. and the remaining small shipping companies got 19 per cent. of the livestock trade the Coast Lines had 61 per cent., British Transport Commission 37 per cent. and the remainder only got 2 per cent.

Some idea of the importance of the cross-channel trade to this country can be further emphasised in terms of money by the import and export figures over the past seven years from 1952 to 1958. The total imports for the seven years in question amounted to £676,000,000 and exports, including re-exports, amounted to £555,000,000.

Mr. Haughey

Are these to Britain only?

Mr. Russell

Yes, external trade to Great Britain. That makes a total of £1,231,000,000. To further emphasise the importance of the cross-channel trade to this country, I should like to touch on the question of passenger traffic over the same years, 1952 to 1958. The total number of persons who travelled to Great Britain from Ireland in those seven years was 5,200,000. The total who returned from Great Britain to this country, and this is a significant figure, amounted to 4,948,000. In spite of the growing competition from the air the total of passengers travelling by air back and forth to Great Britain is still very substantially lower than those travelling by sea. Even in 1958 a total number of passengers travelling by sea to Britain of 783,00 was substantially greater than the total of 239,000 travelling by air. Over those seven years the number of people who travelled by air and returned by air is almost automatically the same, while there is a significant difference between the numbers of those who travelled out by sea and the number who returned in that way.

The cross-Channel cargo and livestock trade is almost completely owned and controlled by British interests. British Railways operate a cargo cum-passenger cum-mail service between Dún Laoghaire and Holyhead and Rosslare and Fishguard. The Burns and Laird Company operates the Glasgow and Dublin route and the British and Irish Steam Packet Company operates the Dublin-Liverpool route. These figures indicate that there is no competing service on any of these routes by the British owned services. Cross-Channel services are completely owned and controlled by the British Railways and by Coast Lines and its subsidiary companies. The Holyhead-Dún Laoghaire route, the Rosslare-Fishguard route and the Waterford-Fishguard route is operated by British Railways while the Dublin-Liverpool route is operated by the B. and I. and the Dublin-Glasgow route by Burns and Laird.

Since 1939 44 steamships have been transferred from the Irish register with the result that today's tonnage is little in excess of the 1937 figure of 137,000 tons. There is no control over replacements. In 1926 the B.&I. had 50 vessels and now they have only eight. Since 1939 British Railways have transferred three passenger ships and five cargo ships from our register. In spite of increased traffic there is no increase in the number of ships on the Holyhead-Dún Laoghaire route. Some of the vessels have been increased in size and carrying capacity but not to a sufficient extent. In the B.&I. there has been a reduction of almost one-third in the number of ships. The pre-war total of three ships has been reduced to two with a greater amount of space allocated to cattle than in the previous ships. This is probably much more profitable to the company but is not so good for the passenger traffic.

This question of passenger traffic is of fundamental importance to the tourist industry. Passenger traffic has increased by over 70 per cent. while British Railways have increased their carrying capacity by only 40 per cent. while the B.&I. have reduced their carrying capacity by about 30 per cent. compared to pre-war. Hardly a summer passes without some complaint of the treatment of passengers on the cross-Channel routes. Many of these are tourists coming to Ireland for the first time so that their first impressions must be very bad ones.

It is certain their experience in Ireland, however pleasant their holiday may be, will to some extent be coloured at least by their experience passing to this country and away from it.

There is no means of knowing what profits or losses accrue to the British companies which control our cross-Channel services. According to a statement made before the Tribunal set up to inquire into the level of the cross-Channel freight rates, the Holyhead-Dublin losses amounted to £75,000; the Fishguard-Rosslare losses amounted to £100,000 and the Fishguard-Waterford losses amounted approximately to £51,000. Losses on the North Wall service went back to 1952. During the three years prior to that, there had been slight profits. The Rosslare-Fishguard services had been losing since 1951.

No information is available in regard to the financial returns of the British and Irish service but certainly its parent company, Coast Lines, has been making very satisfactory profits over a number of years. It is certain that, even if the shipping companies themselves are not making profits, various concerns which sell their goods and services benefit substantially owing to the large annual amounts paid in cross-Channel freights by Irish exporters and importers. Some estimate of this sum can be made by calculating the freight content of imports and exports.

In the years 1952 to 1958, the total trade between Great Britain and Ireland amounted to some £12 million. If the freight content is estimated at 10 per cent., this would give a total of £123 million. If we take a figure of 7½ per cent., we get a total figure of £92 million. If even half the lower figure, that is, £46 million, could have been spent in this country it would have brought considerable benefit to Irish shipyards, provisioning merchants, ships' chandlers, dock workers, and so on.

If the Free Trade Area materialises, as seems almost certain in some form, it will result in a considerable increase in inter-European trade, both cross-country and cross-Channel. Such a development will mean greater competition with the other European countries and will make it more than ever necessary for our producers and manufacturers to be efficient and progressive. How can they or the country take full advantage of this new and greatly expanded market if they have no control over the essential cross-Channel services? The same will, of course, apply in the event of an expanded and progressive Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement.

In October, 1957, the present Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, after, I think, the seventh consecutive increase in cross-Channel freights, decided to act in the matter. On 23rd October, 1957, as reported in Volume 164, Column 67, of the Official Report, he stated:

The importance of shipping charges on the competitive position of Irish exports is obvious. During recent months there have been discussions in my Department with a representative cross section of firms engaged in the export trade. These discussions were directed towards ascertaining and remedying the difficulties which impede further development of our exports. With a remarkable degree of unanimity, these firms have referred to cross-Channel shipping arrangements and freights as being one of the greatest deterrents to the full development of their export trades.

Further on, he stated:—

Before leaving that point, however, I would request Deputies not to confuse the issue raised in the motion with the question of the possible extension of Irish control in cross-Channel shipping operations. The two issues are quite distinct and separate. The problem of high freight charges and of concerted action to arrange the charges could conceivably arise, even if only Irish controlled companies were engaged in the trade, and indeed a number of the companies which are involved in the arrangement to be investigated are Irishregistered companies.

Then he went on to say:

It may be, of course, that the inquiry may reveal information which will have a bearing on the other issue, but that is another day's work. I may say also that there are some discussions taking place regarding the possibility of an extension of Irish control in cross-Channel shipping. Apart, however, from indicating that the matter is having active attention, I am satisfied that it would not be helpful if I were to say more at this stage.

In the same discussion, I said, after the Minister had spoken, as reported at Column 73:

I agree with the Minister that one should not confuse the issue. There are not two confusing issues but rather they are all part of the one issue.

I suggest that the Minister is putting the cart before the horse. This is the seventh or eighth increase in cross-Channel shipping charges over the past few years. I feel that, if the recent 7½ per cent. increase had not taken place, the Minister would not now be setting up a tribunal to inquire into the level of freights, and other matters.

Later on, I said, as reported at column 74:

I was glad to hear the Minister say that consideration is being given to the question of some participation by this country in the cross-Channel trade. My only regret is that the question of this participation was not considered and something done about it over the past 30 odd years.

In his reply, the present Taoiseach, Deputy S. Lemass, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, said, as reported at column 87:

The purpose of this inquiry is to ascertain the facts and report on the facts. When the facts are known, in so far as it will be possible for the inquiry to produce the facts, then decisions on policy will be taken by the Government.

Further on, at the same column, he said:

The disturbing factor in relation to the shipping freight rates is the regularity of the increases notwithstanding the frequent fluctuations which have taken place in freight rates upon other shipping services, on this cross-Channel service they have gone up step by step almost, as Deputy Lynch said, year by year and they have gone up on the basis of a percentage increase applied to existing rates without any reference to the economics of any particular type of traffic...

When he was concluding, he said, as reported at Column 89:

We are dealing here with the question of charging for a service, not with the adequacy of the facilities or the desirability of Irish participation in that service which, though an important question, is a separate question, and I emphasised that these two questions were distinct and separate because, as I said, some action in regard to the extension of Irish control of the shipping services is proceeding and I do not intend that that action should be impeded in any way by the fact that this inquiry is taking place. There is no reason why it should be delayed on account of the passing of this motion by the Dáil.

At the end of his speech, the then Minister said:

"We will consider then the steps that can be taken to deal with this problem of shipping rates of cross-channel services."

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the Volume?

Mr. Russell

Volume 164, Sir. Following the debate on the setting up of the tribunal, an article appeared in the Sunday Press of October 13th. 1957—I must say a very well-written article and a clarion call to us in this country about the strange-hold of the monopolists who could choke us to death. I quote from the article:

"Mr. Lemass has announced a public inquiry into cross-channel rates. This enquiry will be one of the most important events in modern Irish history. It may herald in one of the greatest economic battles of our era. Over the centuries the British have ruined our shipping trade. When they had killed it, they monopolised it for themselves. Now their monopolists are putting our whole economic position in peril.

It is a consistent consideration of British policy, and the fact that we have gained political independence has not wiped out the terrible wrong this nation has suffered when Britain, by foul and fair means, was building up her empire. Now is our chance to stand and fight. Now is Britain's opportunity to right an ancient wrong."

He quotes the I.B.E.C.—that is the American report of 1952—which said that its data indicated that Ireland, overall, paid out at least seven times the amount in foreign exchange for transport what it received for transport services rendered.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Irish Press suggesting that while the idea of setting up the tribunal to inquire into freights was an excellent one, I felt that the first and most important factor was to secure an adequate degree of control over, or at least, a participation in the cross-Channel shipping services. But as Deputies are aware the tribunal held a number of public sittings during last year and finally it issued its report about the middle of 1959. That report is an extremely interesting report. There is no doubt that great credit is due to the members of the tribunal. I do not know how many Deputies have read the report through in detail; I did and found it extremely interesting and as Deputy Haughey has noted, a very revealing one. Certainly it provided me with most of the data I raised here this evening but I beg leave to make some quotations from the members of the tribunal because I think they are very relevant to this motion and I think are of importance to the country.

I quoted from page 138 of the Report:

"External trade forms a high proportion of the national income. In 1955-56 exports represented one-fifth of the gross national product compared with 15 per cent. in Great Britain while only the Netherlands, among O.E.E.C. countries, devoted a higher proportion of the national expenditure to imports. Of the total annual imports in the years 1954 to 1957, inclusive, from 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. originated in Britain. The proportion of our exports going to Britain was much higher, ranging from 74 per cent. in 1954 to 60 per cent in 1957. In addition to sea traffic the figures include goods carried by air and cross-border traffic originating in or consigned to Britain. Live cattle represented by far the most important single item in our export trade with Britain accounting for 40 per cent. of the total value of the trade in 1957."

It goes on to give figures for cattle exported in 1955, 1956 and 1957 as 484,000 of which 80 per cent. were stores. About 98 per cent. of the livestock shipped in 1957 were shipped by subsidiaries of the B.T.C. Livestock accounts for about 30 per cent. of the volume of traffic for 1957 and 84 per cent. of the total volume of livestock traffic passed through the port of Dublin.

The report goes on to comment on page 145:

"It is notable that the general level of internal Irish railway rates increased by a smaller percentage between 1938 and 1957 than did through rates in the cross-channel trade... On the other hand, internal British railway rates, despite rapid intensification of road competition in recent years, increased by a greater overall percentage during this period than did Irish railway rates.... The position of sea transport, however appears to reflect the absence of the sort of competition which the railways had to meet."

It goes on to say that since 1938 the actual increases accruing to sea transport have exceeded those for the rail portion of the through rates and have substantially exceeded the increases in the internal rates of C.I.E. I do not know whether that was intended to make C.I.E.'s rates too low or cross-Channel rates too high—possibly some of both. It states:

"Consequently while the sea portion of the through rates increased by about 45 per cent. from 1951 to 1957, inclusive, the port to port rates increased by 60 per cent. The difference between the increases in the general level of rates for sea and rail cannot be explained on the grounds of costs as the financial experience of the railways would scarcely support this. A more probable explanation would appear to lie in the competition experienced by rail as compared with sea transport. Until recent years when ferry services emerged in the Six County trade, shipping undertakings did not have to meet anything approaching the intensity of competition that has for so long existed between road and rail transport."

Then it goes on to confirm the competition or lack of competition making the significant observation:

"It is evident that the primary concern of the Conference members has been with the maintenance of the status quo in the sense of the existing relationship of traffic flows by the various routes.”

At any rate, it is clear that the members view any sudden disturbance of this pattern with alarm.

An Ceann Comhairle

I feel the Deputy is quoting over-much. So many lengthy quotations are not in order.

Mr. Russell

Could I just give a few more, Sir, just to conclude my point?

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy not be in a position to summarise the quotations?

Mr. Russell

Anyway, to summarise the substance of the Tribunal's report, I think it is correct to say that while they did not find evidence of gross overcharging in respect of cross-Channel rates, they did find evidence that the existing companies who formed the cross-Channel Conference opposed any form of competition from newer types of cross-Channel services. Evidence is shown in this Report that when an effort was made to establish ferry services between this country and England, they were blocked by the action of the established shipping companies who eventually took them over altogether. The Tribunal is of opinion that this new development, ferry services, would be a very useful, indeed a very vital, cross-Channel link for this country, which depends so much on the quick and efficient transport of goods, particularly agricultural produce and livestock from this country to Great Britain.

May I quote the concluding paragraph of the Report, which suggests:

(i) A valuable safeguard could be provided by greater Irish participation in the cross-Channel trade. Since the area where a compromise on rates is most likely to be made is in the provision of ferry services, it is here that participation would probably be most effective. There are clearly aspects of such a course which are outside the scope of the Tribunal and which would require examination, particularly in relation to the needs of the livestock trade.

I should like to submit that if we agree that the present position is, to say the least of it, highly unsatisfactory, the time has surely come when the Government should take action in the matter. As I indicated in quotations from speeches of the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, now the Taoiseach, two and a half years go he apparently was taking some action in connection with the question of Irish participation in the cross-Channel services. During the two and a half years that have passed since then no indication has been given to the Dáil of the progress made in these efforts, or indeed if any progress at all has been made.

With the present set-up in cross-Channel shipping trade it is quite impossible for any private enterprise effort to enter into the trade. Apart from the question of the purchasers of ships, which would be extremely heavy, there is the question of port facilities on both sides of the Channel, the question of lairages and other services that go hand in hand with shipping. All these are completely tied up under the ownership which has existed for almost 100 years. Anyone endeavouring to break into that tightly-knit circle would be faced with an impossible task. It seems to me that there are only two joint ways in which this country can get some measure of adequate control over this vital service. No. 1 is, as I have indicated earlier on, to seek by negotiation an adequate share in the cross-Channel shipping services, either through joint participation with the British Transport Commission or with Coast Lines, which is the other large interest involved. Secondly, I think the present Minister should make an all-out effort to establish a regular ferry service between this country and Great Britain.

In conjunction with the ferry service I should like to see a container service established. I know that in stating this there are certain difficulties in the way of establishing such a service, that the dockers have indicated they will only accept such a service on certain conditions. But I believe that, with energy on the part of the Minister and goodwill on both sides, a way could be found for ensuring a substantial Irish participation in these cross-Channel services.

I notice in recent reports in British newspapers a suggestion that British Railways are due for a drastic overhaul of their entire services and it has been suggested that their hotel interests and also their shipping interests may be disposed of. If there is any substance in these reports, I would suggest to the Minister that this might offer an opportunity to gain a foothold in the cross-Channel trade.

Finally, might I say that any suggestions or any criticisms I have offered here are made in the hope that the Minister will appreciate that if this country is going to expand in the era ahead, if this Anglo-Irish Trade Conference comes to fruition— as we all hope it will—and if it is going to lead to a substantial expansion in trade between the two countries and between the two countries and the Continent of Europe, it is vitally necessary that we have an adequate measure of control over an economic and efficient shipping service between this country and Great Britain and Great Britain and the Continent.

Mr. Wycherley

I formally second the motion.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I wish to say at the outset that the Government have no objection to the acceptance in principle of the motion because in fact this question of seeing what can be done to improve the cross-Channel services is under examination and has been under examination for some time. I was very interested to hear Deputy Russell's carefully composed analysis of the general position. It will save me the need to repeat a good deal of the statistics which he brought into play in discussing this question.

First of all, just to put the picture at balance, it is true, of course, that there is no completely Irish cross-Channel service of any magnitude. There are two small companies who have a certain amount of trade. Then, of course, there is the British and Irish Steampacket Company which is an Irish registered company although owned by Coast Lines Limited. The vessels are Irish registered, Irish people are employed and the headquarters are in Dublin. A vessel was recently built at Liffey Dockyard at a cost of £500,000 and a sum of £45,000 is spent in repairs annually. I simply mention that in order to indicate that there is some Irish participation in the cross-channel trade, though not of a fundamental kind in the sense that there is no very large company of 100 per cent. Irish interest carrying livestock and goods and passengers across the Channel.

There have been certain changes in the pattern of cross-Channel traffic that have occurred in the past few years, one of which has been the concentration of traffic and goods through the ports of Dublin and Cork. In 1927 half the total exports and imports carried by sea were through the port of Dublin and by 1954 the proportion had risen to two-thirds. A considerable amount of money has been spent on the improvement of port facilities in the smaller ports around the coast and that has had the effect largely of stabilising the position since 1950. In other words, the tonnage brought into and from the smaller Irish ports has neither shown any increase or decrease since that date.

Quite evidently there has been this concentration of traffic through the port of Dublin in spite of reasonably sufficient—I think—efforts by Governments to modernise the small ports.

A number of proposals have been made in connection with the problem of greater Irish participation in cross-Channel trade and I think I should give some indication of the present position because there have been changes taking place fairly continually during the period that this problem has been under examination. As indicated by Deputy Russell the existing traffic is handled by very well organised undertakings who have the ships, the personnel and what is more important, tremendous dock and warehousing facilities both at British ports and at the port of Dublin. I think it is possible to say immediately that to establish an entirely new undertaking, a new Irish company engaged in cross-Channel traffic either for goods or for passengers would be extremely difficult. The mere difficulty of acquiring the necessary port space at British ports, for example, would be almost impossible to surmount. It would require many millions of capital, and to find the necessary depreciation for brand new vessels and at the same time "break in" competitively into long established traffic carried out by competitive concerns would, I think, be a hazardous operation.

The alternative is to buy an existing undertaking or to take a share in one. I should like to mention that Irish Shipping experimented for a time with two vessels and tried to get traffic but was unable to secure business from importers and finally had to convert the vessels acquired for the purpose of entering this trade to carrying traffic to the Continent. I should make it absolutely clear that if any action of a positive kind is to be taken in relation to our cross-Channel traffic we must be certain that it will reduce freight costs. I see no other purpose in investing money in any existing undertaking or taking part in an existing undertaking unless we can be sure that freight costs will come down. As is well known both here and in the Six Counties our very lifeblood depends on competitive export trade and every element of cost in that trade, whether in relation to agriculture or livestock or to industry is of vital importance so that we would have to be absolutely certain that participation would mean that the service would be more efficient, more speedy and less costly. We would naturally be glad if, as a result of such participation, increased employment could be given to our own people but the major factor must, under our circumstances, be the effect on costs. If we were to take part in carrying passengers we must be certain that we shall be able to generate more passenger traffic that does not exist now and not merely make passenger traffic generally more pleasant for the existing traffic. In other words we must be certain we can produce results.

Mr. Dillon

Did the Minister say that he dismissed the possibility of making travel pleasanter for existing travellers?

Mr. Childers

I said it would not be sufficient to do that alone. We would like to make travel more pleasant but at the same time if there was to be a great amount of capital involved we must be certain that there would be other desirable results.

Mr. Dillon

But the other is a legitimate aspiration?

Mr. Childers

Certainly. Like Deputy Russell, I have read the report of the cross-Channel Tribunal two or three times very carefully and I cannot help feeling that they have quite rightly expressed the view that, taking it by and large, there have been no excessive rate charges and that many of the fears expressed about enormous profits being made at the expense of exporters and importers do not seem to have been justified. Some of the figures they give there are interesting. They have shown that there have been greater increases in certain types of rates. I should like to refer to one statement made that, taking the general price index as 100 in 1938 and as 338 in 1958, the land portion of freight rates went up to the figure of 307 while the sea portion went up to 340, that is to say, the sea portion of through rates. The livestock charge went up to 311 and the port-to-port rates—rates of charges purely from port to port—for goods to 388, a figure somewhat above the general price index.

The Tribunal remarked on those figures and concluded, as I said, that there had been no evidence of excessive rates being charged. They criticised the Irish traffic conference in rather measured terms for having resisted innovation in certain types of traffic at the same time making it quite clear that the resistance was of a temporary kind—in other words, that they would show co-operation as soon as the methods for carrying goods inevitably changed—their resistance, so to speak, was limited.

The tribunal reported equally that the collective arrangements of the conference were not inimical as a whole to the interests of the country. The tribunal also commented on the statements in regard to profits made by the various concerns and the profits reported and published indicated that at no time did they appear to be excessive. They were steadily reducing all through the last five years—that is up to the time the tribunal reported—and, allowing for replacing ships and depreciation, some of the concerns were showing losses in 1957. Some of them succeeded, through the combination of carrying passengers as well as cargo and in the Report the various profits and losses for the different types of carriage, are analysed. As Deputy Russell indicated, the British Transport Commission reported a very heavy loss. One of the interesting features of the report was that although complaints were made by individual importers and exporters in regard to the freight charged they found it very difficult to make comparisons with freight charges to and from ports in other countries. I think that was largely because of the short haul. The complaints made were mostly of an individual character and as far as I can gather from reading the report they relate to special types of goods for which there were no specially reduced rates.

There was one complaint in regard to charges for motor cars being greater than the charges on routes of roughly the same distance elsewhere. One or two other comments were made but in general one could not say that exporters and importers had presented evidence to the tribunal really proving the existence of excessive rates. As I said, the comparison is difficult because of the short haul and it may be noted that some of the shipping companies reported that 40 per cent. of the cost of transport for goods here was incurred at ports and not on ships at all. Of course, 40 per cent. is a very high figure. It is impossible to compare the freight rate on goods, say, from Dublin to Naples with the freight rate from Dublin to Liverpool unless you compare the proportion of port costs to the cost of the actual transport on the ship.

The tribunal also had some comments on the cost of handling in the port of Dublin and reported that one of the factors that enter into the port charges was the high cost of handling goods at Dublin. They gave the figure of £1.066 per ton as the average cost of handling dry cargo as compared with £.825 at Liverpool and £.875 at Manchester, again indicating that factors outside the immediate control of the Shipping Company enter into freight charges as a whole.

So much for the background facts in relation to this whole problem.

During all this period there have been fairly continuous changes on the part of the various carriers concerned in the method of charging for rates which, again, make it very difficult to take a firm decision as to what part we can play in the cross-Channel shipping world. For example, in Great Britain the railways are gradually changing over from charging on the basis of the value of the goods to charging on the basis of the physical characteristics of the goods and the ease with which they can be carried on a train. In the case of both Great Britain and our own railway system here the establishment of package charges and greater freedom to charge individual consignors individual rates have again altered the position. At the same time heavy competition of road traffic with rail traffic has been a very noteworthy factor in keeping rates down. Most important of all, the container business has commenced and, although the container ban operates at the Port of Dublin, except for certain types of livestocks and other goods, it is in full operation in the Six Counties and has very greatly altered the position——

Mr. Dillon

What kind of livestock do you ship in a container?

Mr. Childers

I was referring, not to livestock——

Mr. Dillon

Dead stock?

Mr. Childers

Yes—livestock products. It has been highly successful in the Six Counties and the result of the container ban here has been to divert traffic to Belfast, to Rosslare and Waterford and a further result has been a reduction in the total number of sailings by the British Transport Commission, who intended to specialise in container traffic. Their container business rapidly expanded up to the point of the ban in 1956. It is absolutely certain that when, as we hope, the negotiations in regard to the container ban here have proved successful, there will be very considerable changes in the pattern and the flow of traffic and this in turn will create new problems of its own.

Cargo ships have to be adapted to take container traffic. Specialist ships can be built for carrying containers and for operating ferry services and that, in turn, will have some effect, possibly, upon the rate structure for all types of traffic. None of us can foresee the future but if container services develop they will take, it is believed, the cream of the traffic, the traffic that used be charged for at high rates because it consisted of goods of high value, presenting the old fashioned type of carrier and carriers dealing with livestock and with commodities that cannot be taken in containers with the problem that they have lost some of the more valuable traffic to container services and that will again alter the profit pattern in regard to a number of these services.

So that, the whole position of transport across the channel is in a state of flux and has been so for two or three years.

Mr. Dillon

Might I ask the Minister what categories of commodities has he in mind for transfer in containers which are now not eligible for container traffic?

Mr. Childers

Well, all the raw materials for light industries, for example, goods of that description, raw materials for the radio industry, the light metal industries, anything that can be conveniently put into a container and, of course, the ban on containers, as the Deputy knows, also applies to turkeys at the present time although it does not apply to carcass meat.

Mr. Dillon

No. The assembly of turkeys for installation in containers presents a domestic transit problem.

Mr. Childers

I am aware of that. I think it should be clear to the House that this is not an easy problem to solve, that if you took any particular action at this moment in the direction of participating in this traffic it would be difficult to see what the result would be having regard to the changing patterns that are quite evident. If we are going to take any action we want, naturally, if we can, to underbid the existing traffic rates, to lower the costs of exports and imports, to assist industrialists and to assists the farmers. As I have said, we intend to examine this question and if we feel that by participation we can assist the country's trade we shall, naturally, take positive action.

I can certainly make it quite clear that the cost involved would be very high. It will not be, as I have said, a question to any great extent of generating new goods traffic; it will be a question of carrying existing traffic and, perhaps some new traffic at a lower cost and the capital cost naturally, has to be considered in relation to the whole of our economy.

One of the suggestions of the tribunal was that a voluntary committee representative of shippers should be formed to examine shipping problems and discuss them with the traffic conference. I am glad to say that certain representatives of Irish shippers have already interested themselves at my request in establishing a committee on the lines envisaged by the tribunal and the Irish and British Traffic Conference has also expressed general agreement with the tribunal's recommendation and I hope to be able to announce the formation of a committee on a satisfactory basis fairly soon. In relation to any decision we make it will be very valuable to have a live committee of traders who are in close contact with the countries and who perhaps will be able to underline some of the observations made in the tribunal's report, will be able in some cases perhaps to prove that the tribunal was conservative in its observations. Such a committee may raise problems which reflect the need for changes. A closer connection between traders and the shipping conferences will be of considerable value and if they can make any recommendations to me and to the Government which will help me to solve this very difficult problem I naturally shall be delighted.

Deputy Russell referred to the number of boats serving passengers on the cross-Channel routes. Of course there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in the past. Equally I must admit, as did my predecessor, that there has been a great improvement in regard to the carriage of passengers on the cross-Channel routes, particularly last year. The number of sailings have increased as required on the days of peak travel, so one cannot really compare the number of vessels used; it is really a question of the number of sailings.

The House knows there have been very great structural improvements at Dún Laoghaire, and those improvements are continuing. It is intended to extend the accommodation for passengers on the pier by continuing the second storey around the whole of the pier and to provide an outlet for motor cars in the form of a special track. A crane will be installed on the pier to assist in the quicker discharge of motor cars. I understand that cranes are being established in the same way at Holyhead, and I hope the service will continue to improve there. I am glad to say that last summer not a single person who had a sailing ticket was left behind.

We must study the problem of how we are to participate at all in that traffic. It is peak traffic and according to the statement of the British Transport Commission there are losses incurred each year. It is very easy to provide extra vessels so that people can travel more comfortably but those vessels cannot be used in the winter months with the exception of the very few days at Christmas; it is virtually impossible to charter extra vessels because all the vessels carrying passengers on the various cross-Channel routes around the coast of Great Britain are equally competing for peak traffic.

Therefore, while in theory it would be a grand thing if we could invest in a cross-Channel steamer passenger service we would have to look into the cost to make quite sure the losses would not be of a very high order. We must always face the problem of the very high peak traffic in the summer months. Deputies may have read reports of some of the discussions that have taken place both here and in Great Britain in regard to the general staggering of holidays. There have been numerous discussions in Great Britain as to whether, in relation to school holidays, it would be possible to stagger the whole of the holiday traffic, so that it would extend from June until September. If that should ever come about—it requires a degree of planning and ordering of people which probably would prove excessive—we would be able completely to solve the problem of the peak passenger services which operate during a very few weeks of the year.

There is constant examination of this problem being made but conditions are changing so rapidly and the question of the carriage by containers is so vital and of such importance in making any examination or any proposals, that it would be impossible for me to say at what time I could form final conclusions. I can only say we shall put the same degree of energy into the examination of the problem as we are, for example, putting into the generation of transatlantic air traffic, where efforts are being made to develop more traffic, although, as I have said, the problem is quite different in connection with the cross-Channel service because there you must draw traffic from competitive carriers to a very large degree in taking any action of the kind which involves capital investment on our part.

Mr. Dillon

This whole question of cross-Channel traffic is very important to our economy. How far the general traffic can be considered as being of an importance similar to that which attaches to the live stock trade I am not qualified to say. I do not know in how far we can expect materially to reduce our costs of industrial production by reducing freight rates of components in transferring them from their current form of shipment into containers. I cannot imagine that the differential could be very large. It may be but I do not know. However, I do know that the freight rates on live stock are a matter of vital consequence.

This problem is one of immense complexity; it is not simply a question of measuring how much per bullock it costs to ship bullocks from the North Wall to Liverpool. You must look into all the different kinds of freight rates that were at one time available and have from time to time been withdrawn. There was a time when, if you loaded a beast at Ballinasloe, you could get a through rate for it from Ballinasloe to almost any town in England, and that was a very important concession to the live stock industry. Most of these kinds of rates have now been withdrawn to the great detriment of the live stock industry but the withdrawal of this composite kind of rate makes it extremely difficult to compare current charges with charges in 1938 to which the Minister has referred.

The Minister rather shocked me when he blandly said, taking 1938 as 100 and 1960 as 320, or whatever it was, and finding the actual cross-Channel freight rate is 380, there was no great disparity here. I think it is a very great disparity. There has been a considerable advance in the facilities and in economies in the operation of shipping services between 1938 and 1960. I would have expected that if the general rate of increase was of the order of 100 to 320 the Minister would have regarded himself as being satisfied if he discovered there was only an increase of 220 in respect of freight rates, but I am not a bit satisfied when he states that when everything else has gone up from 100 to 320, the freight charge on the shipment of live stock from here to Great Britain is 380. This causes me extreme consternation and dismay and I am amazed that the Minister for Transport and Power who has nothing else to do, is not exerting himself to get a satisfactory explanation as to why these shipping companies are not able to show better records than they are apparently in a position to do.

What has happened in this connection is that, by a wide variety of minor adjustments of one kind or another, the live stock industry is bearing more than a fair increase in the freight rates payable between here and the ultimate destination in Great Britain. I agree with the Minister in his apprehension that entering into the trade might not produce the results that are hoped for. The Minister has nothing to do now but look after power and transport. I often wondered were we daft when we set up this separate Ministry when I listen to the things the Minister talks about. I used to handle the general question of transport rates on livestock from here to Great Britain when I was Minister for Agriculture as a kind of side show and it did not tax my capacity to do so. I remember frequently interviewing these traffic conferences the Minister described and bringing the Live Stock Exporters Association and the traffic conferences together in consultation with the Department of Agriculture.

I am not satisfied that there was not a good deal of "jiggery-pokery" going on. I remember that at one stage there used to be the question of wagon rates and then it became a matter of urgency as to who would fill the wagons and you discovered that the question of who would fill the wagons meant a difference of about 22/- per head in the transport of catle.

I discovered that if you could get these men sitting down around a table you could get some sort of reasonable agreement between them. It did some good and you could get some arrangements made. They finally arrived at an agreement that the original arrangement would be continued provided that there would be a representative of the railway company present and, if there was an argument, there was some arrangement whereby an official of the railway company and an official of the livestock shippers would arbitrate and settle it there and then. Thus, by operating a Health Robinson kind of arrangement, we succeeded in operating a transport system but, like most ad hoc arrangements of that kind, it had the saving quality that it worked. There was realisation and knowledge on both sides that if a irreconcilable argument did arise there was machinery to resolve it.

Mr. Childers

If I may interrupt for a moment, the port to port rate, that is for the loading of livestock at the port and the unloading at the port of destination, in 1957 was 298 as compared with a base index of 330. In regard to through rates the livestock rate was 341 compared with 330.

Mr. Dillon

I would say that the port to port rate is of a character that would entitle the Minister to say that it is fair enough. When we come to the through rate, the Minister should be on his inquiry to ask why it has gone up substantially more than the overall rate. We are entitled to ask the shipping companies for an explanation as to why that is so. Doubtless they will make the case that they do not control the internal rail rates in England, that there is a rising level of wages in England and that the railway workers, having fallen behind the general trend, are seeking to recover their position, but, as against that, the railway companies are being modernised. They are going over from steam to dieselisation, as we have done, and if they are losing something on wages they must be economising on the side of increased efficiency.

We are entitled to say to them then that since 1948 we have quadrupled the numbers of livestock we are sending over their systems and if we are sending over four times what we were sending before there ought to be some sort of wholesale rate but, as far as we can see, the more we send the higher the price goes. I would press very strongly that they stop these fantastic increases and that the increased volume of traffic should entitle us to a lower rate.

There is only one other point which I wish to make. I want to concentrate on the matter of livestock because I believe that that is the important thing in so far as freight rates are concerned. Turkeys may be of great importance and then there is this argument about containers but that is a matter which is not so easily solved. Nobody has told us how you are going to put turkeys from the four corners of Ireland into containers. You have got either to bring the turkeys to the containers or the containers to the turkeys.

Nobody but a damn fool, and there are damn fools in this country, will go about bleating that our turkeys arrive in the Smithfield market in a state of decrepitude owing to the existing form of pack. The existing form of pack is excellent and the turkeys arriving in Smithfield from Ireland compare favourably with turkeys arriving from any other country in Europe, or in the world for that matter, and they arrive in better condition than they do from any other source of supply in Europe. It is injurious and dangerous to a valuable trade for people to tramp all over this country and say that unless Irish turkeys arrive in the British market in containers they are not fit to eat. Ninety-nine per cent. of the turkeys arriving in the British market from this country arrive in better condition than turkeys from any other country in Europe. No other country can deliver them in as good condition.

I think the Minister for Transport ought to be able to do something to make it easier for tourists to come to this country with a car. There is no country in Europe into which it is more expensive or difficult to bring a motor car than this country and it ought to be one of the easiest. The Minister should investigate, as a matter of high urgency, the facilities for tourists to bring a motor car here and the cost. It would be a good investment and a good propaganda stunt to be able to say that Ireland is the cheapest country in Europe into which to bring a motor car and that anyone could bring a car here from any part of Great Britain for £1 during the tourist season.

If we did that for three or four years and gave them every possible facility for transport we would find that we would get back in tourist income a great deal more than any cost in which it might involve us. There is no use taking 3/4d. off the freight of a car. You have to make a big feature of the fact that Ireland is the cheapest country in the world into which to bring a tourist car. Every car which comes in that way will bring three, four or perhaps five tourists with it and they will spend money in areas where it is most difficult to provide industry or other forms of employment at the present time.

However, there would be no use persuading a vast number of people to tender cars for transport if you cannot take delivery of them but if we built the trade up sufficiently it might be possible to run a ship every night carrying cars. There is such a car ferry running to certain Continental countries which carries nothing but cars and tourists. I ask the Minister to give a decision on livestock transport and tourist car transport and he will be doing something really valuable for the country.

Debate adjourned.