asked the Minister for Transport and Power how he reconciles his statement on 12th October last at Cork that the Government is irrevocably opposed to subsidies for transport with the financial assistance given by the State to purchase, build and maintain airports and aircraft.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Subsidies for Transport.
14.
Mr. Ryan
My statement at Cork to the effect that the Government is irrevocably opposed to subsidies for transport referred, of course, to subsidies to meet operating losses. This is, of course, quite different to the investment of capital sums in the building of airports and the purchase of aircraft. Such form of financial assistance is inescapable in modern conditions when initiating and developing a new form of transport, such as air transport. No subsidy in respect of the operation of the national airline has been necessary since 1951.
Shannon and Dublin Airports taken together made an operating surplus in 1959/60 though they are not yet able to meet the full cost of depreciation and interest on capital. The national airline, while paying interest on loan capital, has not yet been in a position to pay interest on capital advanced from the Exchequer. I hope that conditions will make this possible in the future.
Mr. Ryan
If, as a consequence of the coming of internal air services between Dublin and Cork and between Dublin and Belfast, there are operating losses on the main line passenger train services will the Minister subsidise those transport services or will he allow C.I.E. discontinue passenger train services altogether?
The Deputy is asking a question completely out of context with what he asked before.
Mr. Ryan
Now is the time to ask and answer questions and not when lines are closed.
May I ask the Minister a question? Refusal to accept the principle of subsidies in transport appears to apply to uneconomic rail transport. Will the same principle apply when and if it transpires that the alternative bus transport that is being provided proves to be unequal to the situation? Will the buses be discontinued?
It would be quite impossible to forecast the future in the manner envisaged by the Deputy but in regard to rail transport the position is as I indicated quite clearly already. There is already excess investment in transport in this country.
Would the Minister indicate to the House why C.I.E. in the last year or two were allowed to embark on such major capital expenditure and for what purpose roofs were replaced on railway stations, bridges repainted and all this expenditure undertaken when it is now claimed that the railways were running at a loss?
The Deputy had an ample opportunity to raise those questions in connection with the debate on the Estimate for my Department. He did not raise those questions then when it would have been quite possible for me to indicate to the Deputy the uses to which the capital advanced to C.I.E. since the 1958 Act was devoted.
They had not got round to tearing up the lines in Cork then.
The lines were not torn up then.
If the Deputy did ask the Minister, would he have said he had no function in the matter?
This is all irrelevant.
Mr. Ryan
It is relevant——
Interruptions.
There is a limit to the number of Supplementary Questions that may be permitted.
Mr. Ryan
If the Chair would limit the Minister's speeches it might be more to the point.
Is that a reflection on the Chair?
Mr. Ryan
It is my turn today; it was the Minister's last night.