Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Jul 1961

Vol. 191 No. 6

Estimates for Public Services, 1961-1962. - Vote 45—Transport and Power (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the motion: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."— (Deputy McGilligan.)

Mr. McGilligan

Last evening I opened my remarks on this Estimate by objecting, first of all, to this Department having been set up at all. There was no necessity for it. It must be a rather humiliating experience, I think, for the Minister to be put in charge of a series of companies which, according to today's paper, are described as either solvent or tending towards solvency. The limited information we have got shows that they are all in a very definite position of not paying their way. We were supplied with over 60 pages of typescript as between the two documents circulated to us in connection with this Department. Yesterday we had 38 or 39 pages of typescript which the Minister read; the rest is taken up with notes he supplied over the week-end, with a warning that this might be the last time these notes would be supplied.

In all the 60 pages there is not the information that would be required from, say, the chairman of a group of companies addressing a shareholders' meeting and trying to get them to understand how the companies under his control were doing. In the first page of the notes supplied the Minister speaks of the groups for which he has responsibility. He states:

"A great part of the work of the Department is concerned with the State-sponsored bodies for which the Minister for Transport and Power has overall responsibility. These are—

He names them.

"——the Electricity Supply Board, Bord na Móna, Córas Iompair Éireann, Irish Shipping Limited"

and the three air companies, as well as the Shannon Free Airport Development Company.

The next sentence swerves away from the overall responsibility which the Minister states he has for these State-sponsored bodies.

"Under the relevant statutes these bodies enjoy a very wide degree of autonomy in their day-to-day administration".

There is then a zig-zag back again:

"They are, however, subject to certain statutory controls, particularly in relation to finance and are also responsible to the Minister in matters of general policy."

It has been the experience of this House over the past couple of years, since this Ministry was founded, that we more often hear about the autonomy of these companies than we hear of the Minister's responsibility for them. There is scarcely a question that has been addressed to the Minister that has not met with the evasive reply that the matter is one of day-to-day administration for which he has no responsibility. Even when questions on matters which I would assume would have been accepted as policy have been put to the Minister, he has disclaimed responsibility. Nevertheless, he has made many journeys abroad and up and down the country, exploiting himself as the person who is responsible for these State-sponsored bodies while, at the same time, in this House he fails to give the information that should be supplied so that people could understand how his Department is progressing with the bodies that are under it.

Let us start with the principle that he does control a great number of the State-sponsored bodies. I notice in this morning's paper the word "solvency" is used with regard to C.I.E.; it is approaching solvency. I suppose the Minister would agree with me that these various bodies mentioned in the first page of his notes are bodies no longer in the promotional stage; possibly an exception might be made with regard to Aerlinte, thought it is now in its third year. The rest are outside the promotional stage. It is a well-known practice with regard to these State-sponsored bodies that they are provided with State capital and credit from the community and they are given a certain time to get their financial feet under them before they are asked to remunerate that capital. But they are asked in the main, and they should be asked, first of all, to service any capital while it is outstanding and to ensure by sinking fund devices, and otherwise, that repayment will be made within a reasonable time having regard to the assets the particular State-sponsored body controls.

With the possible exception of Aerlinte—and I do not make that a real exception—all these other bodies are in the position that they should be meeting their accounts in the way in which an ordinary commercial body would be meeting its accounts. There is a delusion current amongst certain people in this country, and even amongst certain Deputies in this House, that what is called the public sector of our economy is progressing and that it is virile, active and successful, when, all the time the contrast that is so often made with what private enterprise does in this country is opposed to that illusionary situation.

I am putting it that these bodies are all now in the position, again with the possible exception of Aerlinte, in which they should be on the same footing as any ordinary commercial concern. That is to say that they should, in the course of their operations, draw in as much revenue as will meet ordinary operational expenditure and that they will have enough money to replace their plant and machinery if it goes out of order and to keep their premises in good condition. It also means that if they have to borrow money from a bank or from private subscribers they will be in a position to pay off some of the capital and, while any of that capital is outstanding, to pay the interest on it.

That sort of comparison should be made with this group of State companies. It is not an unfair comparison that at this stage of their lives these bodies should meet that standard and that they should successfully compete in private enterprise conditions. State sponsored bodies are better off than private companies. Private companies have to meet their running expenses and make sufficient profit to enable the people associated with them to live and to keep up an ordinary standard of living. The State sponsored body has no profits to make. All it has to do it to pay the interest on the capital advanced to it and to repay that capital.

In connection with this matter of capital I asked questions yesterday to find out what was the overall situation of the State in regard to the moneys lent out to these various enterprises. I was told that the gross return for the year ended 31st March, 1961, was about £10 million. Of that the interest was £3.5 million. That is the interest paid to the State by these bodies out of which £2.9 million came from the E.S.B. The overall return was 3.2 per cent. and the return from the E.S.B. was 4½ per cent. If the overall return is only 3.2 per cent. and if the return from the E.S.B., with nearly £100,000,000 invested, is 4½ per cent. then the other bodies cannot be paying three per cent. between them. The calculations cannot be made exactly because one would want to know the amount invested in each body but it is quite clear that if the overall return is 3.2 per cent. and if the E.S.B. supplies 4½ per cent., the return from the others must be under three per cent.

I asked then what we were paying for money we got in by way of National Loan and otherwise. I was told that the average rate of interest on long term debt was 4.3 per cent. If State-sponsored bodies other than the E.S.B. are only paying interest at less than three per cent., they are not paying what the State ought to get on the money which it borrows and passes over to them. These State-sponsored bodies are not merely getting money at low interest rates but they are even depriving the State of the interest they ought to pay. They are getting money under exceptional conditions such as the easy provision of credit and they are not able to pay the interest that they should pay.

On first reading of the Minister's speech it emerges that C.I.E. are losing and that their losses will be cut down this year to £250,000. Shipping is running at a loss this year of £460,000, Shannon airport is running at a loss of £307,000, Dublin airport at a loss of í232,000 and the Aerlínte operational losses are expected to be in the region of £80,000 this year. The full total of those is £1,330,000. That is not anything like the true picture but, taking it at first glance, all the companies about which the Minister boasted are costing the community £1,330,000 if the losses do not run any worse than is estimated. That is nothing like the true picture and I want to go through the various companies and see what the true picture is.

To get the true picture we must know what capital is invested in any of these concerns, what interest they pay on the capital put into them, what sinking fund arrangements are imposed on them. We would also want to know whether the revenue they are receiving is better or worse than the expense they have to incur in providing the service. We would also have to inquire into the treatment of the employees, how their wage rates compare with outside employment and what are their superannuation arrangements. After all that, one would want to inquire what service these concerns are providing, whether it is efficient and whether it is one that the public are looking for and are entitled to expect.

I shall take C.I.E. first. The Minister has told us in his notes that capital has been written off to the extent of £24? millions. In addition to that there is a later £10,000,000 which was put into the various companies that form C.I.E. and that has been written off also. I do not believe that is anything like the total of the money originally put into these concerns but let us start with that. In addition to it there is a sum of £6.6 million, the payment of which has been waived. Those three items total nearly £41,000,000. It is quite clear that in ordinary business capital commitments sometimes have to be written off. The business gets into the position that it cannot meet its capital commitments, it goes bankrupt, pays so much on each share and then starts all over again. In that way it gets rid of the dead weight of debt.

This is a significant sum of nearly £41,000,000 which has been wiped off the capital originally put into the services that are now tied up with C.I.E. An article was published on 24th June of this year in a journal which is described as the official organ of the Road Transport Organisation. After a good deal of criticism, and they are entitled to criticise, of the whole railway system, because they are definitely being put out of the running in competition against the rail system they wind up in reference to road services in Britain, which, they say, make a profit of from £35 millions to £40 millions a year, by summarising the C.I.E. position rather well, I suggest, in the next two or three lines. They say that surely the State-sponsored transport undertaking, Córas Iompair Éireann, with over £20 million losses written off to the tax-payers, with Government responsibility for pensions and gratuities to redundant staffs, with an annual State grant averaging £1 million, plus many lucrative monopolies both overt and hidden, at the very worst should be able to break even or to show a paper profit.

I have searched through the Minister's speech to find out some of these things. It is quite clear that the redundant employees are now a burden on the State, at least to a certain extent, £250,000, and that is going to go on for a long, long time. In addition to that, the State has taken on itself the burden of paying the interest which was waived in favour of C.I.E. and that the Minister's speech put at £632,000. If I add these two together it means that the State at this stage, when C.I.E. is described as almost becoming solvent, is bearing £880,000 a year. Whether the £1 million that we are supposed to give to C.I.E. by subsidy is in addition to that or covers that, I do not know. It should emerge from the speech but it does not.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy agreed to the writing off of the capital in the various Acts.

Mr. McGilligan

Some part of it but £632,000 is not the return on £40 millions. It is not the interest waived on £40 millions; it is the interest waived on one part of it.

Mr. Childers

Nothing has happened since the 1958 Act that is being concealed from the Deputy in the way of writing off of interest. The Deputy knew it all.

Mr. McGilligan

The 1958 Act is the basis on which the whole C.I.E. rests. It is by reason of the fact that certain advantages were given to them under that Act that they are able to be in the position where some persons can describe them as approaching solvency. I am approaching it from the reality. Under the 1958 Act the State took on certain commitments amounting to £880,000 a year. In addition to that, there is a possibility of having to pay £1,000,000. Whether what the taxpayer is being asked to shoulder for the benefit of C.I.E. is £1,880,000 or whether it is some difference between £880,000 and the addition of another £250,000, I do not know, and it does not emerge from the speech.

Surely the Minister in relation to C.I.E. should have set out to clarify that problem, or does he suggest that it is clarified? Are we not entitled to get from the Minister a statement of how much of the capital was completely wiped off, that is to say, that people simply had to abandon their hopes of getting any return on capital previously sunk in the railway system? We should know what was the capital that is now regarded as the live capital in C.I.E. We should also know how much they are paying per annum by way of interest on the capital outstanding and what they are doing in the way of repaying some part of this capital.

In any event, I say any chairman of a railway company, let alone a chairman of so many companies as the Minister presides over, would have made clear to the shareholders what the situation was, instead of merely hiding behind these evasive phrases, speaking of C.I.E. as approaching solvency. The Minister would surely agree with me that no ordinary company in this country could be described as solvent unless it was paying superannuation moneys to its employees when they retired, more particularly when they were made redundant by the operations of the company itself, and were meeting capital charges. Whatever the situation is, it is known somewhere or another and an analysis of the figures would show what the real position is. I would suggest that some of these 1,000 staff — 200 generals and 800 technical and professional people — could have been better employed, than giving us all this mass of detail, in giving a simple balance sheet for each of the six or seven concerns for which the Minister speaks.

Mr. Childers

The balance sheet is available to the Deputy in the C.I.E. report.

Mr. McGilligan

Is the Minister standing for C.I.E.? Does he want to explain what C.I.E. stands for? Could he give a summary of all that? Does it emerge from the C.I.E. report what the taxpayer is paying by way of subvention to C.I.E. this year— £880,000?

Mr. Childers

The Deputy should have raised all that on the debate on C.I.E. It would have been more proper than some of the things he raised.

Mr. McGilligan

Could the Minister put it into a paragraph of this speech?

Mr. Childers

This has all been said before.

Mr. McGilligan

Would it be worthwhile saying over again?

Mr. Childers

It could be said over again.

Mr. McGilligan

Would it be worthwhile, in a speech which the Minister reads once a year in connection with his Department, having one page which would set out what the taxpayer is providing for C.I.E.?

Mr. Childers

I have given that.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it such that it is possible to say that C.I.E. is approaching solvency?

Mr. Childers

I cannot repeat everything. I have given that to the Deputy and the House before.

Mr. McGilligan

C.I.E. is approaching solvency. I say that a company is not solvent if it has to get £880,000 from the taxpayer to meet interest payments and to meet moneys that are paid to redundant employees.

Shipping is simply thrown at us here. As far as shipping is concerned the Minister has changed his stand from last year. Last year, the Minister came in here gaily to announce that Irish Shipping had made a profit over the year. Deputy Dillon asked at what rate of interest were they paying on their capital and how were they repaying capital and the Minister explained that that was not any part of his business to know. Pressed by questions as to whether it was not something that the Minister in charge of a Department having charge of shipping would be able to tell the public, he again said he had not asked them. It required a Parliamentary Question to get the reality exposed. The reality was that there was some operational improvement, some operational profit, of about £150,000 but that interest and depreciation amounted to nearly £500,000. So that the company that was represented here in a gay fashion as being a success, as making a profit of £150,000 a year, turned out in the end to be running at a loss.

This year, however, we have got the figures. The operational profit on shipping this year is stated to be £238,000 and then, instead of a calculation being made as to what depreciation and interest this year are, we are told that last year the depreciation was £695,000. Let us assume that these payments by way of interest and sinking fund and all the rest of it will not be worse than the £695,000 of last year, although that is, of course, an optimistic statement; there has been more capital invested in the ships; there must be more expenditure by way of depreciation and interest and all the rest of it. However, take it as being merely £695,000, that leaves this shipping company in the red to the extent of £450,000 for the year. In any event, there has been this amount of candour about the Minister this year, forced out of him by the exposure that occurred last year.

Mr. Childers

It is published in the official report of the Shipping Company.

Mr. McGilligan

Listen. The Minister came in last year and talked about a £150,000 profit. I am saying that at least this year he has added on the depreciation figures.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy should be aware that there is no concealment whatever.

Mr. McGilligan

That shows £457,000 of a loss.

Mr. Childers

That is published in the Irish Shipping accounts. There is nothing secret about it.

Mr. McGilligan

It shows a loss of £457,000. The E.S.B. is clouded with mystery so far as this statement is concerned. It is dealt with at a later page and we are told: "It is gratifying to have to record that the provisional results show a reasonable surplus" and this, the Minister says, "is welcome news after the deficiencies of the three preceding years." The E.S.B. accounts are drawn up as at the end of March in a year. We are now in July. Is the Minister not in a position, with his behind-the-scenes access to the E.S.B. Board, to say anything no better than: "I understand that the provisional results for the year ended 31.6. '61 show a reasonable surplus"? What is the surplus called reasonable? How much? Does the Minister know?

Mr. Childers

I left the debate as wide as possible so that I could give as many final figures as I could. I have not got the final figures for the E.S.B. There is nothing sinister about it.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister accepted the phrase from somebody "a reasonable surplus." What does the Minister call "a reasonable surplus"? What would be disappointing to him in the way of a surplus? Is the Minister not able to say?

Mr. Childers

I cannot go on replying as the Deputy goes along. I am only trying to explain a few things.

Mr. McGilligan

The explanation is provisional results?

Mr. Childers

I shall give the Deputy the figures.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not give them to me now? Why not give them in the Minister's speech?

Mr. Childers

Because they are not available. There is nothing sinister.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister could believe there were provisional results which showed a reasonable surplus?

Mr. Childers

They have not been fully audited and checked.

Mr. McGilligan

They could have been put forward here as a provisional account and we would then know what the Minister's view is of a reasonable surplus. I want to know what that surplus is. I have not got it yet. I doubt if we are going to get it during this day. We are told this heartening thing:

The improvement is due almost entirely to a saving on fuel costs made possible by the phenomenal increase in output from hydro-electric stations in what was an abnormally wet year.

So, if there are reasonably good results this year, it is because of the shockingly bad weather of last year which put plenty of water in the three lakes and in the canal and brought about a better situation in the hydro-electric stations. It was because of that fortuitous circumstance that the Minister was able to say in the evasive way he has said: "The provisional results show a reasonable surplus." What, I wonder, is called "a reasonable surplus"? How is it arrived at?

Yesterday, Deputy O'Malley, who apparently is so young in the Party that they are afraid to let him know what the economic facts of life in this country are, talked a lot about the Shannon and tried to deny that the Party to which he belonged was against the whole Shannon project. He said, in fact, that the only difficulty Fianna Fáil had long ago about the Shannon scheme was that it should have been built on the Liffey and if that had happened, if the then Taoiseach's good ideas about hydro-electric development had been encouraged, there would be no difficulty whatever. The Deputy did deny these famous phrases with regard to the "white elephant."

It took me some little research last night to get these old cuttings out again. I want to refer to one or two of them. In the notorious speech with regard to this matter, defaming what even in its earliest stages promised to be a very good development, the denigrating phrase had to come from the man who is now Minister for Health. In the Seanad in March, 1932, he spoke about the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and said it had as its programme the hydro-electric development of the Shannon, the reconstitution of the dairy industry of this country on a new basis and the establishment of a sugar beet factory. He since added another thing to that—the Drumm Battery. This comment was made by him:

The success of that Government's practical policy was expressed by the four schemes—the Shannon Scheme, the Dairy Disposal Board, the Drumm Battery and the Beet Sugar factory...

I just want to pause there to reflect on those four things. Three of them are still going concerns and very strong going concerns. His comment was:

... as precious a collection of white elephants as ever drove their unfortunate owners to the verge of insolvency.

That was then possibly regarded as good politics in those days. Whether it was good national politics, there is not much mistake about what the public comment would be on that.

I always felt that the most foolish comment ever made in regard to the Shannon Scheme was made by the present Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan. He is quoted as saying in 1930:

It was claimed that when the Shannon scheme was got going it would promote industries in the country, but he had been speaking to people who were thinking of taking in the Shannon Electricity for power purposes and they said they could get results cheaper with crude oil.

That was the comment made by a man who rose to the heights of being Minister for Finance here recently—that people had told him they could get better results with crude oil than the Shannon power.

The present Taoiseach was afraid that:

... if the Free State got involved in war, a successful air raid on the headquarters of the scheme would leave the industries in every city and town paralysed and a reign of darkness all over the country.

That was the then Mr. Lemass in May, 1927.

I have many other quotations I could give here, but I am just replying to what Deputy O'Malley said yesterday. A journal called Irish Truth, which had no political liking of the Government I belonged to in those days and was fostering Fianna Fáil as a new Party, had this comment to make in an editorial in April, 1927:

The present scheme for the Electricity Board bids fair to develop into a crazy, overgrown, megalomaniac enterprise whose financial foundations are from the very outset unsound.

That was the mood in which the enterprise now known as the E.S.B. was brought into being.

There was a series of articles in the Irish Times running from April, 1925, to April, 1927, which wound up by saying that the whole business was a gigantic gamble. They said that “the country as a whole was afraid of it”, that capital was “a very shy bird” and that when this scheme would break down, as it was bound to break down, there would be no capital for sound development. They asked the Government to cut their losses, to throw this £5,000,000 aside, and get on with something else.

Deputy O'Malley yesterday made a contention, backed to some degree by the Minister, with regard to the subsidy that used to be given for rural development and which Deputy Norton, as Minister for Industry and Commerce and Tánaiste, with the complete accord of the Government to which he belonged, removed at one time. Deputy O'Malley is apparently under the delusion that it is because of that electricity charges have had to be increased over the years. Deputy O'Malley thought that matter had been referred to here in the House. Finally, he said that it was referred to in the report of the Board in 1957. The Minister spoke of the report of 1960.

I asked, and I want to ask again, if what we did in removing that subsidy and putting the burden of meeting the expenditure previously met by the subsidy on the E.S.B., was a crime and something harmful to electricity development here. There is a Government in power for four years since. Why did they not restore what we had taken away? Let me put it in a different way. Why do they not undo what it was alleged we had criminally done? The Minister referred to the 1960 E.S.B. report but after vainly endeavouring to back his colleague Deputy O'Malley he swung away from that. Deputy O'Malley tried to make the House believe that the subsidy had been restored. The Minister did not entirely agree with that. His phrasing was not very clearcut and I want to make clearcut what happened.

The annual report of the E.S.B. for the year ended 31st March, 1960, says at page 10:

At the 31st March, 1958, when subsidy at the 50 per cent. rate was reintroduced in respect of the balance of the areas remaining to be electrified——

Mr. Childers

That is right.

Mr. McGilligan

I quote again:

——the Board had spent approximately £23 million on rural electrification of which the State had borne only £1,980,000 or 8.6 per cent. of the money spent, instead of 50 per cent. as originally planned. The effect of the loss of almost £9,500,000 in subsidy is to add a continuing annual burden of more than £500,000 on the Board's finances in respect of rural electrification, a burden which has to be borne by the Board's urban and industrial consumers.

That is all that was done in 1958, that the subsidy at the rate of 50 per cent. was reintroduced in respect of the balance of the areas remaining to be electrified, but the Board was left to bear what they say amounts to an annual burden of about £500,000 a year, and that was not restored. In the days when Deputy Norton, with the full approval of the government to which he belonged, took that step with regard to the subsidy, the finances were in excellent shape. The finances were under good management in those days and quite handsome profits were being made. They are not supposed to make profits. They are supposed to carry their expenditure under statute and we fill in the gap. We filled in the gap by asking the Board to bear the whole burden of rural electrification which on their accounts as they then stood they were perfectly well able to do. That position has not been restored. I think the subsidy for the remaining areas was restored, but what happened in the meantime?

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is travelling on a very dangerous road now.

Mr. McGilligan

If there is any dangerous ground would the Minister put a mine under it and explode it? If he does that in his concluding speech, I shall wait to hear it but I have not heard anything explosive from him yet. I want to state what happened to the finances of the E.S.B. I have here the book called Economic Development, the document which this Government got a group of able civil servants to produce to help to explain to them what our policy was in regard to the financial development in this country. It was produced in November, 1958, and I wish to refer to the fourth paragraph of the chapter dealing with electricity. Earlier paragraphs deal with the investment in the development of electricity. They say it is now in the region of £100 million which includes £23 million for rural electrification.

Paragraph 4 on page 182 says:

In recent years the provision of generating capacity has run ahead of the country's requirements, and the E.S.B. has surplus capacity, over and above a reasonable reserve for contingencies, which would enable it to supply current of 400-500 million units a year in excess of the present demand of about 1,775 million units. This alone would suffice for almost four years of growth of demand at last year's rate. The period of excess capacity will be prolonged by the completion of new generating stations now under construction. The heavy excess investment in plant adds to fixed charges and represents a deadweight burden on the E.S.B.

Paragraph 5 points the moral of that paragraph:

Heavy investment by the E.S.B. without a commensurate rise in revenue has meant a steep rise in the proportion of capital charges (interest, sinking fund and depreciation) to revenue. In 1951-52 capital charges represented 30 per cent. of revenue and likewise 30 per cent. of working expenses; they now represent about 50 per cent. in each case, or over £6 million a year, and will continue to rise.

That was the folly that caused the electricity charges to be raised: heavy excess provision for generating plant.

At the time Mr. Whitaker wrote this pamphlet it represented almost four years of growth of demand at the rate of the previous year. That was in 1958. Although there was excess capacity representing four years' growth of demand there were new generating stations in commission and we have more generating stations in commission now. We have now reached the amazing point that in order to subsidise peat development the electricity consumers are being asked to pay heavier charges. In introducing one of the recent Electricity Supply Bills the Minister explained that. It was not very clearly explained but the information was dug out of him by questions afterwards.

What is the position nowadays? There is a desire on the part of the Government to stabilise and to subsidise peat development. That is being done by the provision of generating stations which run on peat fuel, either milled peat or sod peat. The engineers of the E.S.B. notably and notoriously had always very grave doubts about these peat-fired stations. It was not that they were unnational; it was just that as engineers they understood there was a considerable risk in having stations which depended upon peat in any form as a fuel. After several years' trial this conclusion was drawn by the engineers: in a bad year one would expect turf not to be too easy a fuel to manage but experience showed that, even in a good year, the peat became very friable and did not supply the boiler capacity it was supposed to supply. The E.S.B. engineers at length prevailed. Of course, in a technical matter like this it was proper that they should prevail,

What it means now is that the E.S.B. are being made build stations, about which they have no real desire themselves, to be fired by peat produced in the country. The engineers have got to this point that if peat-fired stations are erected they will be run in conjunction with a station fired by other fuel. The fuel the Minister has outlined as likely to be used is oil and not coal. We have a situation in which in order to subsidise peat we are supplying certain generating plant fired by peat. Then to prevent a breakdown which the engineers apparently think is likely to occur at any time with the peat stations, we are running up, in conjunction with the peat stations, a station which can be fired by oil which is more dependable and in the end cheaper.

The capital cost of double-capacity stations is very heavy if they can be remunerative only by full use. If an attempt is made to have the capital remunerated by half use, clearly there is going to be very heavy extra charges to be borne.

I have been looking through the Board's accounts over some years and, as far as I can see, the use that can be made of these stations varies from time to time. They are not really required to any great extent as last year. There is a considerable water flow and even at the best I cannot see that these peat stations will develop more than half the capacity at which they are rated. What we are doing is building stations and getting the finance of these stations arranged on whatever is the full load and then sliding backwards and trying to get the capital remunerated by the half use of a station. In the meantime we are building new stations as reserves which are to be fired by oil or, least, they are so arranged that they may be fired by oil.

The E.S.B. have made a reasonable surplus this year. They have made it against considerable difficulties — difficulties not of their making. I have always suggested that it is right and proper, and if there is a national mood to that effect, that peat should be subsidised but it should be done openly by some subvention brought in on behalf of Bord na Móna instead of using half-powered peat stations against the considered technical views of the engineers of the E.S.B.

Let me return back to the matter of interest. The E.S.B. are one of the few concerns paying interest on the moneys lent to them at such a rate that the State is at no loss. I know from my own experience with regard to the Board, and when I was in the Department of Finance, that the E.S.B. give a profit to the State in interest rate on the money invested in it but they have to pay a rate which is about 4½ per cent. The overall rate is only 3.2 per cent. and what is required is 4.3 per cent. in order to remunerate the State in a proper way. Under the statute founding the E.S.B., the E.S.B. was put under an obligation to do certain things which are not required of any other company in this country, as far as I understand, private or public. The E.S.B. have to meet their running costs. That does not merely mean paying the employees and opening up new areas for development but it means also repairing the main part of the Shannon works as far as they go out of commission or get into disrepair during the years—in other words, put the plant in first class condition. At the same time, they are expected to repay the capital investment in such a time as is appropriate according to the life of the various assets under the Shannon Board of Control.

No company in this country has to do that. Notwithstanding that heavy burden and notwithstanding the fact that they must pay interest at a rate to give the State a profit, they may show a reasonable profit this year even though they have to bear the further extra expenditure in relation to excess generating capacity and capacity that can only be half used. They are easily the most successful of all the State enterprises and they would be more successful still if there had not been Departmental interference in connection with the technical operations of the Board.

In that connection I want to say one thing which is not personal. The Chairman of the Board, recently retired, is replaced by a civil servant from the Department of Industry and Commerce. That is a shockingly bad development. First of all, if a civil servant was put in at all he was put in for a temporary piece of work. The intention was not to have that position obtain. I think it is wholly wrong to have what is called an independent Board put under the control of a civil servant who had been attached in a very important way to a Department which should have the least interference with the Board. That is a situation which I hope will be rectified very early.

The next of these concerns over which the Minister presides is Bord na Móna. Bord na Móna, we are told expect a loss this year. The Minister says:

Last year was not a very favourable one for Bord na Móna. Owing to the bad weather during the harvesting season, output of sod and milled peat at about 1½ million tons, was more than 25 per cent. below target and the Board expect therefore to show a loss for the year, after paying interest and depreciation, of the order of £100,000 approximately as compared with a profit of £35,000 in 1959/60.

Then the Minister speaks on the wise provision made with regard to having a stock of milled peat.

Again, I want to ask a few questions. The Board expect a loss of £100,000? Does the Minister know what the loss is? Is the Minister not in any better position than to say that the Board expect a loss of about £100,000? He says it is a loss of £100,000 after paying interest and depreciation. What interest and what depreciation does Bord na Móna pay? Are they still at the stage where they are not remunerating the capital fully? What is covered by depreciation? What amount goes in respect of depreciation? What is the field, so to speak, that that word covers? The Minister can easily supply those details and then we will know whether this £100,000 loss is the only loss we may expect from Bord na Móna or whether it is something substantially more.

Two years ago, Bord na Móna had a very bad year climatically. That year naturally emerges as a bad one for the Board's operations. Nobody can blame them for that. They did show a certain loss, £500,000. I do not believe there is any interest and depreciation covered by that £500,000. That should be cleared up. Bord na Móna is out of the promotion stage. We can make allowances for bad weather. Is the £100,000 a real figure? How much included in that goes to interest and depreciation? When we know that and when we are told what capital is invested in Bord na Móna, we will be able to see whether the depreciation is correct or whether the interest and sinking fund payments meet the capital requirements of Bord na Móna.

The Minister next turned to another matter which is and will be an astonishment to the public to realise just how bad the situation is. He divides his remarks into those that are appropriate on Shannon airport, those that deal with Dublin airport, just a mere reference to the Cork airport and then he goes on to Aer Lingus and Aerlínte. The amazing situation about Shannon airport is that they had a surplus on what was called their operational account. They had a surplus; the revenue was £728,000. The expenditure was just short of £600,000. They showed a surplus of nearly £150,000. But then, of course, interest and depreciation have to be taken in and they amount to £456,000. So, not talking about any of the aircraft that use them or anything else, Shannon airport alone shows a loss of £307,000.

Dublin airport, even in its operations, lost money. The revenue was £340,000-odd and the expenditure was £343,000-odd. There was a slight loss — £3,867. But, again, interest and depreciation come in to a total of almost £230,000. Dublin airport is indebted by £232,000. The two airports, between them, are costing the country over £500,000. That is surprising——

Mr. Childers

I explained that in my speech. I gave all those particulars. The Deputy is only repeating——

Mr. McGilligan

A loss of £500,000 That is not the full total. We are told that total expenditure on the airport in Cork up to 31st March was £457,000. We are left to speculate if that will join the other two in showing an annual deficit because that appears to be expected with complacency as being the proper situation.

Aer Lingus, as we are told, has a surplus of £180,000. We are not told that exactly: we are again in the mood of expectation. The financial accounts are not yet available but I understand from the company that the airline will show a surplus of £180,000 for that year—that is what the Minister says. Is that operational? Does that include anything with regard to depreciation of the aircraft? Does it include anything of interest on whatever moneys have been put into the Aer Lingus business? I take it that it does not. So, the £180,000 surplus will probably disappear, like the revenue surplus in Dublin Airport, amongst all the charges that have to be brought into account as well. It is time we were told in precise terms what is the capital that is invested in Aer Lingus and whether the surplus of £180,000 expected is an operational surplus only and what will that go down to in the way of a loss when appropriate account it taken of appreciation and interest.

Aerlínte is dealt with later. Aerlínte is very meagrely dealt with. I think one page is given to it. We get the familiar phrase on page 33 that the provisional accounts for the year 1960-61 show a probable deficit of £80,000. What does that cover? Is that deficit in operations only? I imagine it is. Supposing we add on interest and depreciation. Are we in again for another heavy deficit under this affair?

Deputy O'Malley yesterday talked in terms of prestige and of the necessity to protect Shannon Airport and to add in these things to counterbalance any significant debt that might be shown in the operations of Aerlinte. On 15th July, 1959, speaking on the Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1959, as reported at Column 1304 of the Official Report, the present Taoiseach said:

We are going into the development of the transatlantic air service in the confident expectation of making a cash profit as well as conferring other benefits directly or indirectly on the country. Our expectations are based upon estimates prepared by very shrewd people who know this business thoroughly and who rarely have been wrong in similar estimates before.

Referring to me he said:

Deputy McGilligan said I had justified this development on grounds of prestige.

That is put aside. He continued:

I never mentioned the word "prestige". I have no interest in prestige in this regard. The decision to proceed with this transatlantic air development, which had been pressed on me by the Board of Aer Lingus, was taken on hard, cold commercial facts and nothing else.

About a week later, under question from Deputy Dillon, the Minister admitted that Aer Lingus had never pressed anything, but Aer Rianta: Aer Lingus had nothing to do with it. However, some board, composed of shrewd men who made no mistakes in their calculations in similar estimates before, investigated the whole circumstances and assured that there would be a cash profit. There was no question of prestige in it. That decision was taken on hard, cold commercial facts and nothing else.

As reported at Column 1305 of the Official Report for the same day, the Taoiseach continued:

The expectation that, after the initial development period has passed, a substantial cash profit will be realised is based upon a conservative calculation of the traffic available.

At a later stage, at Column 1307, the Taoiseach, who was still speaking, said:

First of all, that the number who want to travel to Ireland will be the same percentage in future as it has been in the past and, of that number, Aerlínte will get the same percentage as it has got up to this. Is not that a reasonably conservative basis of estimation and, on it, the experts available to the board of management of this company have calculated that they will make a substantial cash profit?

At a later stage, he asked leave to clear up any misunderstandings about the Aerlínte operations to date, that is, to July, 1959. At Column 1308, the Taoiseach expressed the view:

The experience of every airline shows that it takes three years to get a new service "out of the red". A substantial loss in the first year, with heavy development expenditure inevitably arising, a much smaller loss in the second year and practically level in the third year is the established pattern, and into profits then in the fourth year. That has been the experience of Aer Lingus. It is the experience of most airlines. It is assumed it will be the experience of Aerlínte.

He came back again to his advisers:

As I have said, the accountants and experts of the company sat down in advance to calculate what the receipts and outlay would be. Up to the present they have been shown to be extraordinarily accurate. I was at one time disposed to contest the reliability of their estimation. I have certainly withdrawn from that position. They have shown themselves to be able to forecast these matters with considerable skill and accuracy. It is these same experts who, projecting their calculations into the future upon the assumptions I have given the Dáil, have given us this expectation of a cash profit which will enable them, over some period, to repay these initial deficits and then commence to earn profits. These calculations assume the complete writing-off of the investment in the aircraft in a period of ten years.

Later he spoke of the capital that Aerlinte requires. The first item was the purchase of aircraft and the second was the training of personnel. There is the position as disclosed two years ago. Cash profit was the expectation and not the writing-off of the investment in 10 years.

What did the three Boeings in operation on the trans-Atlantic service cost? I understand they cost over £2,000,000 each with spares—an investment of £6,000,000. Of course, Aerlinte has not one shilling to put into the purchase of these aircraft. It had to be supplied. The money was partly supplied out of the profits I made on the sale of the Constellations many years ago. Now the £6,000,000 investment has to be written-off over 10 years and in the third year there is to be a possible deficit of the order of £80,000 on operations only.

How long do the Boeings last? Apart altogether from the question of being outmoded, when have they to be taken out of service? After how many years? I have heard that they have as short a life as three years but I do not know what it is and I should like to be correct. Have we to face this position, that we engage in an investment of £6,000,000 for three Boeings every "something" year, say, every third year? If so, we know where we are. The State are putting up, for the purchase of the aircraft, and their spares, something in the neighbourhood of £1½ million to £2,000,000 a year. Are they to continue to do that, even if the company gets to the point of making only a profit, say, of £100,000 a year?

This is a matter which should be clarified. The Taoiseach was completely confident some years ago of a cash profit —"a substantial cash profit", were his words. Our whole investment is to be written off in a ten-year period. As I understand it, the investment is about £6,000,000 and I do not know when that has to be repeated. I want to get the matter into the framework of the ten years in which the whole investment is to be written off. I suppose it will be written off as the capital in C.I.E. was written off, simply abandoned. The taxpayer will shoulder this debt again.

Most people are very happy about Aer Lingus. It has all the appearances of being a very well directed company. They certainly receive great tributes from those who travel on Aer Lingus and there is no criticism of them in regard to efficiency and courtesy. Most people had the belief that Aer Lingus was working at a profit, a profit which included the airports. Of course, the airports are part of their assets. It is only to be expected that the air services themselves will get whatever losses there may be in relation to the capital involved in the two airports, and there may be a third airport one of these days. I should like the chairman of the Board when he is addressing the shareholders to say what is involved in the whole air business, Aer Lingus and the three airports. Then there is this terrible handicap to be put on operations that otherwise might be profitable, of Aer Lingus being in conjunction with Aerlínte.

In the background there is another thing which ordinarily is passed over. In the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce—it may be transferred now to this Estimate— there is quite a substantial sum for meteorological services and for some reason in the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs there is another item of expenditure—a substantial one also—for meteorological services. No aircraft could operate safely without the provision of these services and they benefit the people using these services. Has any apportionment ever been made, even notionally, of what the air services, if they were making reasonable profits, might be expected to pay to relieve the tax-payers of their burden for meteorological services? As far as I know, they are simply a charge on the taxpayer for the benefit of the country and the people visiting it. I do suggest that in any business calculation with regard to air services there should be an item included in the accounts of some apportionment of the expenses of meteorological services against these concerns. Yet they do not pay anything in respect of these services. If only notionally the account should be built up to see what the concerns should pay if they were run under business control.

The Minister also referred to the Verolme Cork Dockyard Company, generally referred to as the Cork Shipyard Company. The Minister said he was hopeful that this company, with its magnificent equipment and up-to-date management, would be able to do everything with regard to the repair of ships and possibly the building of future ships for Irish Shipping. I want to know where we are with regard to this company. When the Verolme enterprise was being inaugurated the present Taoiseach took with him to the Netherlands a group of journalists, and quite a following of Party supporters, and they had a great day out in the Netherlands, at the end of which the Taoiseach—he was then the Minister for Industry and Commerce—spoke of the great gesture that this Dutch company was making in investing their capital in this country and developing their enterprise.

We have since tried to find out, from the Minister for Finance, how much Irish money was put into this project and how much foreign money was put in. He has refused to answer. Yesterday I asked if he would state the amount of external capital involved and he referred me to a previous answer and did not reply. I further asked whether the commitments of the Industrial Credit Corporation had increased beyond the figure of £4.6 millions which was stated to be the commitment of the Industrial Credit Corporation on 31st March, 1959. That was stated by Dr. Beddy in his address to the 26th annual meeting of the company. So the great gesture which Mr. Verolme made was that he came across and got £4½ million of our money.

Mr. Childers

I am not in charge of the Verolme Company. That should be addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McGilligan

Address it to whom?

Mr. Childers

The Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McGilligan

I see. We will ring the changes. I thought the Minister for Finance might have been the proper person.

Mr. Childers

The general background would be matters for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to know how much is external money and how much is Irish money. We know that £4.6 million of Irish money has been expended. Is that the grand gesture of confidence on the part of Mr. Verolme, that he would come across here to run an enterprise on our money? We are not told how much foreign money is in the concern.

Mr. Childers

It is not a matter for for my Department.

Mr. McGilligan

Except that the Minister praised the company.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy should not waste the time of the House.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister praised the company and conveyed the impression that it was a great concern, with magnificent techniques and so on. In a great concern with a great reputation, I think we should find that as well as Ireland having £4½ millions in it, they should have an equal amount, £ for £, in it, too. We do not know. That information has been denied to us.

One of the last things the Minister dealt with was the Shannon industrial area. I asked him a question about that and the information I got was that after a number of years the greatest employment given at any time was the employment of 724 people. That is the highest employment that has been given in manufacturing, processing and the production of goods for export. I also asked the Minister for information on the production of goods for export taking place in the Shannon industrial area which was set up, and has been very much boosted, to encourage firms to start factories in that area. Great incentives were given for the production of goods for export. From the Minister and the manager of the concern, we have heard many ecstatic statements about the terrific employment which would be given there.

I addressed a question to the Minister asking for the figures in regard to exports from the Shannon Industrial Zone. In his reply, the Minister stated that records were commenced on 1st July, 1961, and such figures will be available in the future. Whether it is relevant or not, we are then afforded the information that: "In the 12 months ended 31st March, 1961, 753,350 lbs. of goods produced by the factories were exported by air. I await correction but from that I calculate that in 12 months, the production so far as exports are concerned amounted to 300 tons of goods and we employed 724 people. Yet, reading the speeches of the Minister, one would have thought there would be a revival of the Irish industrial community. The Minister tells us in this answer about the variety of goods being produced there and the number of firms. That that concern will be a success is everyone's wish but the prospects do not appear to be bright.

I also asked the Minister what was the State involvement in all this. I know we are building factories and supplying industrial bays and apparently we are now embarking on the provision of houses for workers. Up to date the amount of money involved is just short of £1,000,000. There are over 13 bays and one factory engaged in manufacture for export. I understand that very good incentives were given, that the provision of the site was free and that the erection of the factories was assisted to a great extent by the State. I do not suppose they get any remuneration from the people occupying them, at least not any such return as would remunerate them for the money involved.

I should like to know what exactly is the burden the taxpayer is bearing. We could then get some approach to a decision as to whether or not it is worthwhile. If we take the figure at £1,000,000 between loans and grants in aid, leaving out depreciation and everything else, and if we take the number of workers at 700, it means that our investment is equivalent to about £2,000 per person employed. I wonder is that correct? I wonder what are the prospects for the future of this whole concern.

In that connection, it will be remembered of course that although we were promised 100,000 new jobs under a get-cracking Government, the reality has been that we are 51,000 jobs down between the employment figures for this year and 1956. There are 51,000 fewer people in employment now than there were in 1956. Taking the figure of 724 people employed in the Shannon area, it will take far too long for any Government to catch up on the other 50,000 jobs. All the extravagance in the industrial area resulted in 724 as the maximum employment given there.

In the Seanad yesterday, Senator O'Brien gave as a calculation that he thought we might get 7,000 new people into employment in a year— 7,000 new jobs from a Government who start, as I say, with a deficit of 51,000 jobs. Even if that estimate by Senator O'Brien were not too optimistic and even if that continued year by year it would be seven years before the Government caught up on the missing workers, on the 51,000 people who were in employment in 1956 and are no longer in employment. We can suppose that the 724 are counted in Senator O'Brien's 7,000 jobs to be occupied this year. That is a poor contribution but let us not deride any contribution that brings employment. The country requires every man-jack who can be kept in employment in any way in the new circumstances that face us.

It is very wrong to have such a hullaballoo about this area. It makes thinking people afraid for the future when they hear the Minister getting ecstatic over the new development in the Shannon area, and when they read hysterical articles written about it. The truth emerges in the answer to my question of December last, which is that the highest employment was 300 but that it was expected it would be 724 by the end of the year. That is the contribution to the people who are looking for a fulfillment of a promise of 100,000 new jobs, starting with a deficit of 51,000 jobs.

The Minister stands over all these State-sponsored bodies. There is a line of thought in this country that the State-sponsored bodies are a great thing, doing magnificent work, that they are almost a model for and a challenge to private enterprise and that the private sector is sadly lacking in enterprise, development and everything else in comparison with these State-sponsored bodies. The picture the Minister's speech gives is entirely different from that.

I am not at this moment to be taken as criticising these bodies and the work they are doing. I do not know what handicaps they are labouring under, but I do know that the results are disappointing. I am particularly concerned over a really good organisation, the Electricity Supply Board, which, by bad management, mainly due to interference by a Government Department, has been brought to the point when it is no longer holding pride of place amongst State-sponsored bodies and is certainly no longer in its old position of being able to remunerate all the capital given to it because of the heavy obligations under which certain statutes have put it.

There is room in this country for private enterprise as well as for the State companies, but the comparison should be made on a proper basis. If we are going to compare State-sponsored bodies and private enterprise concerns, then we ought to put the same standards on both and we ought to demand from those who are in charge the same clarity in regard to their operations as one would get from the chairman of a company addressing his shareholders. We have not got that in the 60 pages of notes or in the Minister's opening statement yesterday. We have not got all the information we asked for. We have not got all the information a shareholder would be entitled to get from the chairman of a company or a director on the board. I hope that the Minister will give us this information before the debate closes. Even though it is depressing, let us have the figures.

Deputy Corish asked recently had any examination been made as to why Irish industry—that is private industry—was not competitive. We got no answer to that except that it would not be accepted that private industry in this country was not fully competitive. I would ask now has any examination been made as to why these companies, which have got tremendous advantages over private enterprise companies, have not made a better hand of their work? It may be that there is an explanation. It may be that they are worthy of support. It is a good thing for the country that most of them were started because private enterprise would never have availed; but, in all the circumstances of their establishment, they ought to show far better results than they have shown.

Deputy Desmond read out here a statement made by the Minister at a meeting in Cork in April of this year. It was a fantastic lot of nonsense saying that this country was almost running on noiseless wheels as far as heavy coaches were concerned and there would be buses on the road which would stop at a few intermediate points only. Deputy Desmond asked, quite reasonably, where would they get the passengers? He said he did not know. We are to have roomy, well padded, luxurious, well lit equipment and, at the end of all that, the Minister looked forward to the day when there would be a whole lot of flying fields all over the place so that private flying could be indulged in.

The Minister ought really to come down out of the clouds in which he placed himself in the speech Deputy Desmond read. Any social occasion goes to the Minister's head. He is affected by society and dinners in the same way as the Priestesses in Delphi used to be affected by the vapours that came up out of the caverns. The Minister indulges in similar utterances. But the Priestesses were a rather peculiar crowd. They depended for their reputation not so much on what they said but on gifted interpreters who made some sort of sense out of their nonsense. I do not know whether the Minister has such an interpreter. I certainly do not aim to occupy that post.

Mr. T. Byrne

I was not present when the Minister introduced his Estimate yesterday but I see in this morning's paper that he is hopeful that, within a very short number of years, C.I.E. will be a solvent concern. In so far as that may be brought about by a reduction in the losses hertofore incurred on uneconomic sections of C.I.E. operations, I welcome that forecast. In so far as the forecast may be based upon an expectation of continuously increasing profits from road passenger services, and particularly from those operating in Dublin city, I suggest we can pay too high a price for the solvency of C.I.E.

I want to know from the Minister when will the fleecing of the Dublin public by C.I.E. cease? When will the state of affairs cease under which the Dublin public are financing the uneconomic operations of C.I.E. in rural areas? The spiral rises too high. If one looks at C.I.E. accounts over the past four years one sees a continuously increasing profit from road passenger services, both rural and city. Everybody knows that the really profitable services are those operated in the city where there is a heavy demand. C.I.E. does not break down its passenger services as between rural and city areas. It goes without saying that rural services catering for isolated areas cannot run at a profit.

The last available report for C.I.E. is that for the year ended 31st March, 1960. In that year there was a profit on road passenger services of £860,000. I venture to suggest that Dublin city services are yielding a profit of as much as £1,000,000 per year to C.I.E. That is too much money for C.I.E. to make out of the Dublin public. Fares in Dublin are outlandishly high. Services in may cases are inadequate. We must strive to avoid a situation which has developed in certain European countries in which there is a clash of interests between town and country. It would be most undesirable that such a clash should develop here. But there are signs that it is coming.

If State organisations like C.I.E. and the E.S.B. continue to fleece the Dublin public that clash of interests must inevitably ensue. Such a clash would be socially undesirable. It would not advance the national interest. Fares to the Dublin Corporation housing schemes on the outskirts of this city average 9d. Most of our industries are located in the centre of the city. These dormitory suburbs of ours are not as self-contained as are similar suburbs in England and the people living in them have to travel considerable distances to work. Many a Dublin worker is paying more than £1 per week in bus fares travelling to his place of employment. If the services provided were fully adequate the grounds for complaint might not be so considerable.

Despite numerous representations to C.I.E. by the Dublin Corporation requesting workers' fares, reduced rates for old aged pensioners, special seaside services from Corporation housing schemes, no satisfaction has been obtained. The fact is most Dublin people are grossly dissatisfied, first, with the services provided by C.I.E. and, secondly, with the outlandishly high fares they have to pay. One sometimes hears it said that if one broke down the fares on a mileage basis, it would be found that we are providing transport at a lower rate per mile than any of the British municipal bus services. I am not at all convinced that that is a valid or fair comparison.

Mr. Childers

It is absolutely valid and it is a fact. The fares are reasonable in comparison with any British municipal service.

Mr. T. Byrne

Is it a fair comparison? I think it is not. Any profits earned by British municipal concerns usually go to the relief of rates. That is not so in Dublin. British municipal concerns provide services on a very large scale. The average British bus company has much of its fleet tied up and inoperable for the greater part of the day. These fleets are used mostly for the purpose of providing services to vast industrial estates in the mornings and bringing workers home in the evenings. C.I.E. have not got to face up to that heavy expense. I doubt if the wage rates are comparable. It is well known that British transport concerns find it extremely difficult to obtain labour. They operate recruiting offices in Dublin and they obviously have to pay a very high rate for the services of their workers. No one can claim that the staff of C.I.E. in Dublin are getting a princely scale of wages. It is further a fact that British municipal concerns provide free transport for old age pensioners. They certainly provide for old age pensioners and disabled persons at very reduced rates.

Primarily the reason the comparison is not valid is that profits are retained within the ambit of the local authority. I say to the Minister that the time has come when a halt must be called to the C.I.E. continued fleecing of the Dublin public. We have not got the report of C.I.E. for the year ended 31st March last and it is unfortunate that we have not got more up-to-date figures in dealing with this matter. Perhaps the Minister has been informally advised of the result of C.I.E. working for that year. On the basis of his forecast yesterday, it would appear that he has been so advised. If that is so, I want to know the result of the working of the Dublin services for that year. Has the profit continued to increase and is it going to increase next year and the year after? In 1957, the profit was £600,000; in 1960, it was £868,000. Is it going to top the million pound mark for the year just ended?

This business of Dublin carrying the rest of the country on its back in these matters is again obvious in the case of the E.S.B. Dublin consumers of electricity are carrying to a considerable extent the burden of rural electrification. I think that is bad economics. Rural electrification is a good thing, but, if it must be subsidised, it ought to be done out of the national revenue and we should not expect Dublin workers, middle-class people and people on social services to pay the outlandish and fantastic meter rents demanded by the E.S.B. It is completely out of proportion and I would ask the Minister if it is not possible to devise a scheme whereby a consumer could buy out his meter. The meter would hardly cost more than £5 or £10 but many consumers pay relatively high meter rents and pay the cost of the meter two or three times over in the course of the years.

Mr. Coogan

Deputy Byrne mentioned the matter of meter rents. It has struck me that in many aspects of our life a Garda comes along checking us. A weights and measure inspector comes and checks our scales but I wonder who checks the E.S.B. meters, or have we to accept the meter as O.K. because it belongs to the E.S.B.? Deputy Byrne also mentioned the fact that there is discontent among the clerical staffs of C.I.E. I do not wonder at that when younger men are being promoted over the heads of men who have given a lifetime of service. It is unfair that that should be so. C.I.E. have grandiose schemes in view, but if there is discontent amongst the workers, they will come to nothing.

In the matter of aviation, I would like to say that our transatlantic services are a credit to the staffs. Our ground staffs are very efficient and courteous and they leave a very good impression on travellers. They call it the friendly airline and they can lay good claim to that title. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the staffs. I did have doubts about the advisability of opening the service and I have certain doubts about it still, but if it is a success, it will be the result of the work of the staffs in this country and America.

In regard to airports, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that we intend to see that the airfield at Oranmore is developed. The Minister has attended to the needs of Dublin and Cork, but the greatest claim of all can be made for the tourist centre of Galway. We would have many more travellers and visitors here if we could get over this business of transferring from train to train or from boat to train, as the case may be. I hope the Minister will come to our assistance, both technically and financially. We may not ask for £400,000 as was asked for in Cork, but we will be expecting something.

In regard to the development of Galway harbour, I would direct the Minister's attention to the need for better facilities there for transatlantic passengers. The Minister may indicate that there is a scheme for the development of Galway harbour but in the interim period something should be done to meet the needs of Galway as a port of call. Galway is half a day nearer to the United States than any other port, a fact which the Minister should bear in mind.

I would also suggest to the Minister the provision of a suitable tender service to cater for liners coming into Galway harbour. Cork has got its airport and also a tender service. It is about time that the Minister directed attention to the need for the provision of tenders at Galway harbour.

Meteorological services are referred to in the Minister's speech. There is a meteorological station in one of the wettest points in north-west Connaught. Naturally, the reports from that station, at times, give the impression that the area is very wet. The station is far removed from Galway and people in Galway are often aggravated by reports that give the impression that the season is very wet. I should like to see a station set up in Galway city or the immediate vicinity, the reports from which would more accurately describe the weather in Galway city. People running guesthouses are inclined to believe that bad weather reports militate against the attractions of the district.

On the question of guesthouses and grandiose hotels, I consider that first consideration should be given to people who started such establishments in the west without State aid. They would not consider it fair that the Government should come in and pick the plums.

Mr. McQuillan

I propose to be brief in my remarks on this Estimate simply because of that fact that I know from my experience in this House that the Minister has no function or control in regard to the State companies which have been the subject of comment in the course of this debate. A number of State bodies, namely, C.I.E. E.S.B., Irish Shipping, Aer Lingus, and so forth, have been discussed at length by a number of Deputies and it would appear from their remarks as if the Minister were in a position to alter the workings, the policy and the administration of any of those companies. In fact, the Minister has no more power than I have to interfere with the workings of State bodies.

Questions have been asked in this House, since this new Department was created and the present Minister was appointed, on matters of national or public importance regarding State bodies and the Minister's reply invariably has been "I have no function whatever with regard to the matter raised". Not alone was that his answer in regard to questions which reached the Order Paper but for every question that appeared on the Order Paper five were turned down on the grounds that the Minister refused to handle them at all. Yet, this very same Minister can appear at Chambers of Commerce dinners in Cork, Galway, Limerick or elsewhere and give more information at those functions on the workings, administration and activities of State bodies than he can give to this House, where he should give it and where daylight would be brought to bear on his statements.

It is a disgraceful thing to try to hoodwink the people by setting up a Ministry allegedly responsible for transport and power and to find that the Minister appointed has no say whatever over the State companies which are supposedly under his control. I do not see much point, therefore, in delaying the House in dealing with the aspects of the various companies which have been mentioned in the debate.

One thing struck me very forcibly listening today to Deputy McGilligan and reading this morning's paper, that is, that there would appear to be a concerted attack being launched on State companies. I find that very difficult to understand. The statement was made here by Deputy McGilligan this morning that these bodies have a tremendous advantage over private enterprise. Let us be quite clear that as far as private enterprise is concerned, if they were asked to handle what it is the responsibility of some of these State companies to handle, we would be in a worse mess than we are in today. It was quite open to private enterprise, for instance, to develop our bogs. I wonder was there any great attraction to private enterprise to move into that particular field? To my mind Bord na Móna has not moved fast enough but it is only now, when Bord na Móna has proved that it has done a tremendous job, that all the jackals and carrion try to move in to attempt to dismember this State body.

The extraordinary situation is that the Minister who is in this House allegedly to defend the work of such bodies, has no responsibility for these bodies, has no responsibility whatever for these bodies. The greatest worshipper of private enterprise in the Fianna Fáil Party today is the present Minister for Transport and Power. He must find himself in a rather extraordinary situation when he has to face a skilled speaker and first-class brain like Deputy McGilligan, who probes the weaknesses—and there are many —in the statement of the Minister. The Minister must find himself in a very awkward position in having to defend these companies when he himself believes, as Deputy McGilligan seems to believe, that private enterprise is the be-all and end-all of everything in this country.

I can go back over speeches by the Minister in the last ten years and give quotation after quotation where he has pointed out that Fianna Fáil's policy for the development of this country is based on private enterprise. There is no greater believer in private enterprise than the Minister. Surely, then, it is an extraordinary situation to find an unbeliever in the value and advantages of State enterprise forked out into the position as Minister for Transport and Power of having to defend State bodies. If he does defend these State bodies, he does so with his tongue in his cheek.

The ideal method of dealing with any of the State or semi-State bodies referred to in the course of this debate is through the medium of a separate debate in this House. We had an example not so long ago when time was provided for discussion of the affairs of C.I.E. I believe these State or semi-State bodies must be brought to a greater extent under the control of both Houses of the Oireachtas. It is sad to find that the public are not in a position to know the great work being done by many of these bodies, that the people get a wrong slant with regard to that work, that they get only half the information they should get. These State bodies are not given the confidence of the public, with the result that an opportunity is given to those worshippers of private enterprise to slander them. Instead of criticising the work of many of these bodies, we should be making an effort here to increase their number, so that fields for development and expansion, which in the past have been in the hands of private enterprise, will be given the proper consideration.

As future events unfold, it will be shown that this country can make no progress and there can be no safeguard for our limited population unless we order our economic development in a disciplined fashion. Private enterprise is never disciplined. The only groups that can bring about an orderly and disciplined expansion are the State and semi-State bodies. We have had the example of the Committee set up by the Government to inquire into the possibility of agricultural expansion. That Committee was composed to a great extent of men who were believers in private enterprise. Yet, in the five different fields they explored, they came to the conclusion that only State-sponsored Boards could make the necessary progress. They found that if any progress was to be made, it would have to be through these organs of the State rather than through the existing system of "dog eat dog" and every man for himself.

Therefore, in-so-far as these companies are concerned, our aim should be not to try to destroy them or take away public confidence from them, but to improve them by bringing them more under the control of the Oireachtas. One of the most frustrating things that can happen to the man in the street is to know his Deputy has no functions, cannot interfere, cannot raise a Question in this House in regard to these companies— cannot, shall we say, bring the autocrats to heel. If more power were given to this House, so that the public could let off steam, so that these companies could be questioned here, that would get rid of a lot of the criticisms levelled at these State companies.

I know there are two points of view on this. There is the argument put forward by the bosses of these companies that they could not function properly if this House had more control. I do not accept that at all. That is an attempt on the part of some of these semi-State bodies to become completely dictatorial. I do not want to say too much about it to-day but it is quite evident that public confidence in many of them has been shaken due to back-door methods of recruitment — the question of "I scratch you and you scratch me"— and it would appear that the Minister and this House are not in a position to interfere and see that normal fair play is given in those appointments. I do not say this House should make those appointments but I do say this House should be in a position of control to see that they are made fairly and that not alone is justice done but that it is seen to be done.

Sometime ago the Taoiseach said that if there was a volume of opinion in this House which asked for a regular debate on the activities of the State companies, he would be prepared to make time available. I hope Deputies, especially Deputies in the major Opposition Parties, will accept that offer by the Taoiseach. That is one way in which we can deal in a fair manner with these companies. In such a debate as this there are too many State companies involved and it is not possible to deal properly with them in such a varied discussion.

Before I sit down I should like to refer to the Irish shipping industry. Here we have what is described as a semi-State company. It is an extraordinary thing to find that a number of the ships we own, or are alleged to own, have never yet seen an Irish port. We have them on what I can only describe as hackney work on the high seas, plying between New Zealand and Australia and all over the world. If we wanted tomorrow to engage in trade with the Middle East and African countries, we would not be in a position to do so. We are not in a position to carry our own goods. If we wanted to send Irish eggs to Ghana or any place else, they are transhipped at Liverpool. We have no direct service to deal with our own trade.

It is absolute nonsense for us to be plying the seas of the world, making a few shillings here and there by carrying other people's produce, when we have not ships at home to carry our own goods and build up a trade with the Middle East and African countries which would give us at least some independence and bargaining power if we have to face the spectre of joining the Common Market. The Minister should examine that matter very closely, as I understand Irish Shipping suffered a very heavy loss last year.

I have one other point, which is in connection with this new dockyard in Cork. Would anybody suggest that the Taoiseach has been taking a long-term view of developments? He talked very glibly here the other night about the rationalisation that would have to take place in Irish industry. He said it was essential that it take place. It is extraordinary that he can make a statement like that in view of the serious position in Belfast, which is on its way down. In spite of that, he has decided to give at least £4½ million of the taxpayers' money to a foreign company in Cork. I do not think there is any sensible rationalisation about that. I do not think it is a sensible approach towards ending Partition either. It was done purely on an opportunistic basis.

Mr. Childers

On a point of order, Sir, to shorten the debate, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is in charge of the matters relating to the Verolme Shipyard, not myself.

Mr. McQuillan

I mentioned it only in passing. I have said everything I want to say. I notice that the rose in the Minister's lapel began to wilt today after the criticism levelled at him here by Deputy McGilligan. In conclusion, I say to him he should have the honesty at this stage to tell Deputies bluntly that he is no believer in State enterprise, that he hates it, that he is a lover of private enterprise in its most reactionary form and that it is sheer bluff to have him in the position of being Minister for Transport and Power and allegedly in control of the development of some of the most important State bodies. The sooner the Taoiseach removes him to County Monaghan and leaves him there for good, the better.

Mr. Childers

It has been an interesting debate on this Department, some of it very destructive and some of it constructive. I think I ought to begin by saying a few words about the functions of the Minister and my Department in relation to the State companies. A number of Deputies appear to be confused. Some say I have no power and some make use of the refusal of the Ceann Comhairle to allow certain questions to be answered as a proof that I have no power over the State companies. The powers, of course, which I have are conferred on me by Dáil Éireann.

I should like, first of all, to make clear to Deputy McQuillan that I have never said I was in favour only of private enterprise. Where private enterprise fails to play a useful promotional part in the life of the community I believe in the creation of State companies and I have always so believed. Therefore I can perhaps dispose of that interpretation of anything I have said in relation to State companies.

There are many varying views expressed in democratic circles as to what constitutes Ministerial and Parliamentary control of State companies. Very different views are held by people of the same political party both here and in other genuine democracies. In my view the only way to ensure a reasonable control is on an empirical, practical and reasonable basis. It is utterly impossible to devise a set of philosophical or legal rules which would precisely define the relations between a Minister of a Department, the members of the Oireachtas and a State company. I do not think it has ever been done successfully.

In relation to the powers of the Dáil I would mention that on the Bills which are initiated governing the general activities of these companies varying points of view can be expressed and on the introduction of amending Bills the conduct of the companies as they have existed up to that time can be fully examined and discussed in the Dáil. There is also the debate on the annual Estimate on which a number of matters can be raised. Complaints can be voiced and the Minister, in all suitable cases where he has not the time to reply in regard to each complaint, will refer the complaint to the company concerned.

The Taoiseach proposed during the course of the present Dáil that Deputies, if they wish to discuss the operations of a State company, can move a resolution to discuss the annual report of that company. That has already been done in the case of C.I.E. This enables Deputies to bring forward really serious criticisms of the conduct of a company or of its financial operations.

Finally it is always possible for the Government, if they suspect that a company is not being properly directed, to form either a commission or a committee to inquire into its workings and to report back to the Dáil. An example of that is the Beddy Committee Report on Internal Transport which related largely to C.I.E.

It is the Minister's duty to stimulate debate in the Dáil by speeches he makes in between Estimates and by answering as many questions as he can that will not give rise to undue interference in the day to day affairs of the company. He has to rely on the Ceann Comhairle in that regard and I think a reasonable balance is being preserved. Since July, 1959, I have answered numerous questions covering a very wide range of activities in regard to these companies. A great deal of information has been given but the fact remains that a balance has to be struck. If the tradition grew that it would be possible for the Minister to interfere from day to day with the operation of a particular bus or train service or an electricity service, the staff of the Department would have to be increased by many hundreds to undertake all the investigations. The whole purpose of creating a State company, which is a combination of private enterprise and Government directed enterprise, would be completely lost if the directors and operatives of the companies felt that from week to week they could be constantly interfered with. All this has been discussed many times. As I have said, there is no perfect solution in regard to the degree of control by a Minister over a company and the degree of privacy of that company. It is a matter for practical evaluation.

Some Deputies have suggested that we do nothing in regard to these companies, that they sail along year after year without the officers of the Department or the Minister taking any responsibility. It should be recorded that the Minister exercises very definite control through the appointment of members of the board and through all the detailed examination that takes place when these companies engage in short or long-term borrowing, where a guarantee by the Minister for Finance is required or where the capital has actually to be raised by the Minister for Finance. Again the audited accounts of each of these companies are subject to scrutiny in my Department and questions arising from increases in costs are examined in very great detail with the boards concerned because of the fact that these companies have either already borrowed State capital or are likely to borrow more capital. Therefore, from week to week and from month to month there is very close contact between the Minister, his Department and the higher officers of the boards of these companies.

Over and above that, the Minister has the duty, again directed by the Dáil, to make sure that the policies of these companies are consonant with State policy as a whole. Frequently new directives have to be given to them as to the part they should play in the national economy, and conferences have to be held in relation to new legislation not only in regard to the raising of capital but also in regard to the general character of the companies and the work they perform.

Equally, it is the duty of the Minister to ensure that, as the State has advanced very large sums to these companies, in a general way, the service performed by these companies is adequate and efficiently operated and that it bears a favourable relationship to the promotion of the national economy. That involves very frequent contact, first of all, between the Minister and the chairman of the board of each of these companies, which is conducted on a regular basis, and, secondly, between the officers of the Department and the higher officers of these companies on a great many matters, including those I have already indicated.

Next, I come to the more difficult problem of the supervision of these companies when it comes to day to day activities. That is a no man's land about which a great many words have been written but nobody has made any final pronouncement. I am only going to give a very brief description of my attitude towards it, which I do not think differs very much from that of my predecessors, except in this regard, that this Department has been set up because of the multiplicity of activities involved in the operation of these companies and in the other activities of the Department which were fully outlined and given to Deputies. Because of the growth of industry, it would be quite impossible for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to deal with these bodies and at the same time do his own work.

First of all, in regard to the supervision of these companies and apart from the matters which I have already indicated, there is the question of the charges made to the community by these companies. They are directed to pay their way. It is a policy which has been established and accepted by this House that these companies should pay their way. Some of them are not required to repay their capital under the law. Most of them are required to pay their way and be efficient.

Occasionally in relation to some particular company, there may be some element of subsidy introduced for a specific purpose. When companies raise their charges, it is the duty of the Minister, while ensuring that under the Acts of the Dáil concerned these companies should pay their way, to make sure that the charges are equitably distributed, to enquire in a general way whether in estimating the increased charge regard has been had to all the reasonable factors involved and that the company is not being wildly over-pessimistic or optimistic in assessing what increased charge is necessary.

At the same time, I should make it clear that the E.S.B., C.I.E. and other companies are directed to pay their way and are permitted by this House to increase their charges without any leave from the Minister or the Deputies in this House. That is being done by common agreement between the principal parties in this House since the establishment of the State. In the case of the E.S.B. the relevant legislation was passed in 1927. The reason is surely clear to everybody. If this House could control the charges made by these companies, they would become eventually the prey of political interference of the grossest kind. As a result, they would lose more and more money and more and more subsidies would be required until they ceased to serve any purpose. The fact that they would lose more in larger and larger amounts would simply involve a very heavy burden on the taxpayers of this country. For that reason, although the Minister may inquire into the equitability of the charges, it is very important that the companies are left free to make the charges they think are right in the circumstances in order that the charges made may be as low as possible.

The next matter in which the Minister has some indirect control is in regard to the charges made against these companies of inefficiency. When one considers the huge turn-over of these companies, over a period of a year the number of complaints is very very small. These companies are, on the whole, very well run and the public are quite willing to testify to that even though one reads complaints in the newspapers and even though complaints are rightly raised in this House during the course of the Estimate and at other times through Parliamentary Question.

If serious complaints are made, these are discussed with the companies concerned and if complaints of a repetitive nature take place, then they are collected over a period and the matter is given special attention. Routine complaints made by Deputies or other people in the community in the ordinary way are sent to the companies concerned for attention and reply direct by them. If that was not done and if the impression was given that I, as Minister, or the officers of my Department had the duty of dealing with every single individual complaint in relation to the operation of every single company, then we could treble the size of the Department. You would get the kind of inevitable political interference with the operation of these companies, which is very, very undesirable and so we look after these complaints according to their seriousness. If they happen to be repetitive, then the matter is raised in the usual way in the course of periodic conferences held with the officers of the Department and these companies in regard to their general progress and in relation to their capital requirements.

Finally, as far as State companies are concerned, in the end they depend for their success on the character of the Chairman and Board of Directors and on the efficiency and zeal of the staffs. I think we are fortunate in that matter in this country. Taking the companies as a whole, we are very fortunate in the character of the staffs, the Executives and the Chairmen. Much depends upon the ability of the officers of the Department to have useful exchanges of views and useful discussions with the higher officers of the Department so that the atmosphere can be preserved in which the companies themselves operate without interference; but that liaison can be maintained which is so valuable. The Minister can then be satisfied that there is efficiency, or if there is inefficiency that it is being remedied. When the Minister provides further capital, he can be reasonably certain that the capital already provided is being properly used. A great deal of this depends on the right character of personal relationships.

I think I have given the House a fair description of the work of the Department. I have issued on the working of the Department notes. In that connection, I should say that the reason I thought that that need not be repeated next year was the fact that a great deal of the material in the notes relates to the activities of the marine section, the meteorological and other sections of the Department. The notes are of a very detailed character.

I wanted to make sure that everybody in the House knew exactly what the Department was doing because many of its activities receive very little publicity. I wanted to have a record of the very vital operations that continue from year to year. I wanted Deputies to know all these activities and have some idea of the relationship between the Department and State companies in the formal sense. If there should be some request for a modified set of notes prior to the next Estimate, I should be glad to assist the members of the House in the best way possible.

Deputy McGilligan made a number of observations on the operation of these State companies. I am afraid that it would be quite impossible for me to reply in detail because it would take several hours. What it really amounts to is this. Deputy McGilligan wanted me to give in detail a great many figures in relation to the operation of these companies for the financial year ending 31st March, 1961. I simply am not able to do that. I asked the powers that be to postpone this debate until as late as possible so that the provisional results of the operations of the companies for the last financial year would be available and so that I could give some idea of the progress of the companies.

I do not think the date of this Estimate could be postponed any further. The accounts of the companies are not ready and, therefore, it is quite impossible for me to give detailed replies to all the questions put to me by Deputy McGilligan. I can, however, make certain observations in regard to the suggestion he has made that many of these companies would appear to be shaky financially and that the public are not being told what the true financial position is.

I do not know whether Deputy McGilligan wanted to shake the confidence of the people in these very well-run State companies or what his purpose was. He seemed at one point to be questioning the whole value and idea of peat-fired power stations. As far as I can gather, the Fine Gael Party as a whole would like to close all the peat-fired power stations. It is quite clear from what Deputy McGilligan says that he is not prepared to justify any extra cost that may arise from using a native fuel in this country instead of importing either crude oil to be processed here or importing coal. That definitely appears to be Fine Gael policy. It is just as well that everybody should know it.

Deputy McGilligan clearly suggested that the benefits to be derived both from the wages of the workers and the whole of the set-up of Bord na Móna were not worthwhile because the electric current might cost a little bit more, particularly in certain years if the weather was bad and the peat stations were not paying their interest. I think that can be left to the country at large to decide. I know what the answer will be.

Mr. Dillon

He said that was the cause of the increased costs — not the fraudulent allegations by the Minister that they were due to some other cause.

Mr. Childers

First of all, Deputy McGilligan referred to the losses sustained at Shannon Airport and Dublin Airport. I should say in that connection that with the growth of the turn-over of these airports the position is becoming more satisfactory. In the case of Dublin Airport, for example, the operating deficits during the years of the Coalition Government were in the neighbourhood of £55,000 to £65,000 and they have now gone down to £3,867, in spite of the change-over to jet planes and the difficulties which were forecast. Everybody prophesied that Shannon Airport would experience grave financial difficulties but the operating surplus went up from £74,000 in 1959-60 to £148,000 in 1960-61. I should make it clear to Deputy McGilligan that the meteorological navigational services performed by the State are regarded as part of the normal infra-structure of the State operation both in this country and in every other country.

I should also again repeat that no airports pay in Europe. We have made a very complete examination of the efficiency of Dublin and Shannon Airports. We have compared them as far as we possibly could with airports of similar size in Europe. The results have been shown to be satisfactory. Our airports are run as economically as possible, consistent with safety. If you work out the figure of the cost per transportation unit in terms of landing costs, administration and navigational costs for Dublin and Shannon Airports you will find they compare very favourably with other airports of the same sort or size abroad.

The question arises as to whether it would be possible for us to raise landing fees in this country so that these airports, in addition to paying their way on the operational side, taking them all together, could also pay depreciation and interest. I do not think it is possible. I suppose that the Minister in charge of aviation in every country is looking around at his neighbours and saying the same thing. In the modern world where the aeroplane is becoming an ordinary feature of travel, unless everybody decides that the public should not be expected to pay losses on airports, I do not think we can afford to go any further than we have gone.

We have raised the landing charges at Shannon Airport very considerably recently. We are examining the position at Dublin Airport. Landing charges affect not only Aer Lingus and Aerlínte but also the many foreign air services coming into our country. They would also militate against our tourist industry.

Deputy McGilligan suggested that my report on C.I.E. was cloaking the true facts. I know Deputy McGilligan is a very busy man. It is a curious thing that apparently he has never read the speeches I made when I first took charge of the Department and when I made it absolutely clear to everybody that C.I.E. had made an enormous loss up to the time of the 1958 Act. I several times said, and gave the figures, that even if C.I.E. at the moment — as of the post-1958 period — were completely to wipe out its losses, there would remain a very large amount to be paid by the taxpayer in the shape of interest and sinking fund on the capital that could not be remunerated by C.I.E.

I made it clear that one of the basic reasons for putting the 1958 Act into operation was to end this appalling drain upon the community, that it was utterly wrong, in a country with our national income, for a railway enterprise to lose £24 million in ten years. I gave the figures at that time of what the additional imposition on the taxpayer was besides the subsidy of £1,175,000 now granted for a limited period of five years. I made it absolutely clear that it would take a great many years before the whole of the past losses were wiped out, so far as the taxpayer was concerned.

Deputy McGilligan is quite right that the amount paid in compensation by the State will, even after C.I.E. begins to pay its way, as I hope it will, represent a contribution to C.I.E. and, as the pensioners pass away, this amount will diminish until finally it vanishes. Therefore, Deputy McGilligan cannot possibly say that, when I refer optimistically to the accounts of C.I.E., I in any way try to hide the position from the people. The whole purpose of the 1958 Act was to end these colossal losses.

Deputy McGilligan referred to the present financial position of Aer Lingus and Aerlínte. He wanted to know whether the surplus of Aer Lingus was simply an operating surplus or whether it included depreciation. I referred to the surplus for the year ending 31st March, 1961. We announced that the surplus of Aer Lingus was £180,000 and the deficit of Aerlínte would be £80,000 and the two taken together would be paying their way. Deputy McGilligan wanted to know whether the £180,000 included depreciation. It does include depreciation and also the superannuation services.

I do not think Deputy McGilligan need worry about the financial structure of Aer Rianta. Aer Lingus is gradually developing financially and its general financial prospects seem to me to be bright. In regard to Aerlínte, Deputy McGilligan suggested that the Taoiseach was in some way deceiving the Dáil when he prognosticated the possibility of the transatlantic service making good cash profits. Deputy McGilligan should be reasonable. It was very hard to predict the first year's loss, the second year's loss and the third year's financial position. Although the losses were slightly greater than those predicted, the fact remains the loss has been successfully reduced from £800,000 and £500,000 down to £80,000. I can assure Deputy McGilligan if he thinks he is going to cry out and deride the Minister for Transport and Power, and his predecessor, because of the loss in the current financial year, I predict he will be making a mistake because Aerlínte is carrying something like 74 per cent. more passengers than last year and is doing extremely well.

I think the promoters of any private company, by the time four years have passed, would agree that the predictions made by the experts who provided the information for the Taoiseach, allowing for all the variations that could occur, were well calculated. It would have been very difficult to predict more accurately. He need not suggest that there is something hidden or wrong going on. Of course Deputy McGilligan loves to act like a gadfly stinging all around him, trying to create a feeling of suspicion that something is wrong somewhere with the services that are promoted in this country in order to develop its economy.

Deputy McGilligan also mentioned Irish Shipping. All companies dip into reserves when freight rates go down. Freight rates have shown a cyclical tendency for many years, both in between the World Wars and since the last war. The actual position is that the financial stability of Irish Shipping is very sound indeed. The company has assets of over £13,000,000 in which the State has invested £8.8 million. The rest of the assets have been earned by the company itself. The position now is that Irish Shipping Limited is expected to finance the replacements of its ships out of its own reserve and depreciation funds and the Department of Finance will provide capital for the expansion of the fleet beyond the figure at which it stood a year ago.

As I indicated in my Estimate speech, the two new vessels being built are reckoned to be able to earn both depreciation and interest on the capital invested, taking freight rates as they were last year. In other words, they are reckoned to be extremely efficient ships and able to pay their way. Any ships built in the future with money for which I have responsibility with the Minister for Finance, will be of the most modern type and will not be built unless there is a prospect of their paying their way.

Deputy McGilligan asked if Bord na Móna paid depreciation and interest or repaid its advances. Bord no Móna has been repaying interest and principal. There is no need for Deputy McGilligan to suggest there is something wrong financially with Bord na Móna, or that the company is not really working well. Operating surpluses of Bord na Móna in the past few years have been as follows: 1955-56, £637,000; 1956-57, £671,000; 1957-58, £781,000. There was a loss in 1958-59, because of bad weather, of £408,000 and in 1959-60 there was a surplus of £969,000 and last year there was a surplus of £835,608. As I said, Bord na Móna is regularly paying its interest and depreciation and as long as the weather remains reasonably normal and average it should be able to do so in the future. There is no need for Deputy McGilligan to cast these doubts on its efficiency.

Deputy McGilligan also said a lot about the E.S.B. I want to make one thing absolutely clear, and that is that the reason for the recent increase in charges has almost nothing to do with the fact that for a period there was some excess generating capacity. The excess generating capacity arose because consumption did not increase in the manner predicted by all concerned before certain stations were put into commission. The consumption did not increase because of the crisis for which the Coalition was almost entirely responsible. For a time, the E.S.B. was paying certain sums in interest and principal on stations that were not operating economically. Then, very quickly, the consumption increased and at the moment the consumption is ahead of what was predicted three years ago. The E.S.B., without any prompting or pushing from me, has had to revise its programme of generating capacity upwards. There was no suggestion whatever that at the moment the E.S.B. is, or in the last two years was, losing money because of generating stations that were not earning their way.

The increase in charges is due partly to the growth of the rural electrification network and as I have already indicated there is a deficit in the accounts of £529,000 a year arising from the failure of the Coalition Government to pay the subsidies on rural electrification construction during their period of office. I have been asked why did we not simply restore that annual payment and put it on the current Budget. That was a matter for the Government as a whole in relation to budgetary policy. We felt that as the increased charges for electricity would be only very small, particularly in the case of the very small householders — amounting to 2d. or 3d. a week — that we would be setting a bad precedent in giving State companies the impression that they could do without subsidies and then quite suddenly that a whole round of subsidies should be paid to cover past deficiencies.

We want to encourage State companies to be as efficient as possible. We felt that if we wanted to spend £529,000 in the current Budget, representing a contribution on interest towards a capital deficit, it would be much better to spend the same amount on greater social services, on educational facilities and, above all, on agriculture. All those factors together would enable the people who felt the charges impinge upon them to raise their incomes.

As Deputy McGilligan failed to mention, the amount spent on agriculture in the current year is nearly two and a half times what it was in the last full year of the Coalition Government. Social services have been increased steadily during the past four years. We felt that was the way to do it and not to put this added impost on the taxpayers which would be non-effective in a general way and would have no effect on the rest of the economy. So we decided it was best to allow the charges to be increased.

I should also make it clear that the people on the Fine Gael side of the House talk as if this were the only time electricity charges were increased. Electricity charges were increased in 1956, when the price of cattle had plunged, by a very large percentage in a very short period. They were increased after Deputy Norton, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, had been solemnly warned in 1955 that if the subsidy for rural electrification were removed, increases in charges were inevitable.

I have not got the reference here but it could easily be found that Deputy Norton, the then Minister, was asked by Deputy Lemass whether he would be willing to publish whatever comment the E.S.B. made on this decision not to continue the subsidy. Deputy Norton declined. He was quite entitled to refuse this information if he so wished, but he said he believed the charges need not go up, and a year later they went up by eight or ten per cent.

I think I have dealt fully with the observations made by Deputy McGilligan. I want to assure him that these companies, taken as a whole, are successful undertakings, and that the capital invested by the State can be fully justified from the economic and social standpoint. I do not know if I have time to go into all the points which were raised.

Mr. Corish

There is plenty of time.

Mr. Childers

It would take me nearly an hour to deal with them all. I should like to refer to an observation made by Deputy Lindsay which is reported in the Irish Times today. He said the Ceann Comhairle had disallowed a question on the price paid by the E.S.B. for land in County Mayo. Of course the Ceann Comhairle, in his wisdom, always disallows these questions because if the price of the purchase or sale of land were published in the Dáil in relation to the State companies, it would be quite impossible for the State companies to conduct their business efficiently, as everyone knows.

Mr. T. Lynch

Why should it not be published?

Mr. Childers

That applies also to contracts. By Acts of the Dáil, these matters are left to the discretion of the companies concerned and have been for many years, and there is no change in the procedure I refer to. Deputy Lindsay implied that somehow or other the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Transport and Power were concealing something because of a transaction which was alleged to have taken place between the E.S.B. and a relation of the Minister for Lands. That is typical low-down propaganda. In actual fact, the Minister for Lands and I have had absolutely no consultations whatever in regard to this matter. This matter is simply a day to day transaction by the E.S.B. What Deputy Lindsay may like to know is the fact that the transaction did not take place. The sale of the land did not take place at the figure he mentioned, or at any other figure. So perhaps we can now dispose of another of these allegations.

Deputy P. Byrne referred to the Dublin bus fares and implied that they were at an extravagantly high level in order to subsidise C.I.E. as a whole. I am glad to tell him that in comparison with London and English provincial fares, they are quite reasonable. I am also glad to tell him that while I know the C.I.E. bus service in Dublin is not absolutely perfect — and there may be complaints from time to time — I have had very few complaints of a justifiable character. If Deputy Byrne goes to any other capital city in Europe and observes the proportion of people who travel to their work standing up in buses or trams, he will find the general standard here — inevitably with some exceptions — in which our people are conveyed to and from work is fairly high in relation to the national income of the people as a whole.

Mr. Dillon

We do not stand in the buses here; we stand at the bus stops. I do not know which is preferable.

Mr. Childers

That occurs abroad as well because of bunching of traffic in the centre of the city.

Mr. T. Lynch

I was standing in Kingsbridge for 35 minutes waiting for a train from Waterford that was late. There is the efficiency.

Mr. Sweetman

Maybe it was trying to travel from Tramore.

Mr. T. Lynch

It was probably loaded with rails and sleepers.

Mr. Childers

Some Deputies referred to the necessity of providing better parking facilities close to C.I.E. stations. I have already mentioned that to the Board of C.I.E. and I shall refer the suggestions made by Deputies to the Board as I think the ideas they have expressed are good.

Deputy Russell referred to the effect of the closing of the West Clare railway and to the general transport position in Limerick and Clare. I am glad to tell the Deputy, and Deputy Murphy from Clare, that not only have there been commendations of the substitute service published in the Clare Champion— I shall not read them but they are certainly pleasant commendations — but on the buses replacing the railway, some 50 per cent. more passengers were carried in April, 1961, than in April, 1960. More passengers have also been carried on the Tralee-Cahirciveen bus route because the bus offers a more convenient service and the journey takes very little longer than the train did.

Mr. T. Lynch

It was not raining at all in 1960.

Mr. Childers

Deputy O'Donnell referred to the closing of the Derry-Lough Swilly railway. Railways in scattered mountainy areas are closing in many countries. As the Deputy knows, a sum of £375,000 was provided by the Government for the improvement of the roads in that area. Road grants over a four-year period in areas where railways have been closed are under consideration at the moment. Reasonable amounts have already been contributed to meet the immediate needs of the other areas concerned.

Deputy Murphy referred to the compensation of workers in areas where railways have closed. I have had very few complaints in that regard. The compensation paid is very reasonable. Where workers find their conditions worsened there are arrangements for arbitration. In actual fact all this is really a matter for C.I.E. and the trade unions concerned. I am sure Deputies would wish that it should be left to C.I.E. and the trade unions rather than that I should interfere. I should not interfere unless some general public principle were involved. However, where matters can be satisfactorily settled under the 1958 Act negotiations are best conducted by the trade unions and C.I.E.

Questions were asked about C.I.E. workers' pensions. Workers who retired before 1956 contributed 1/- a week and C.I.E. 4/9 per week since 1956, the rates of contribution are 3/-to 6/9d. by C.I.E. Various alternatives were offered such as a pension for a larger amount for a certain period and a reduction thereafter or a definite rate of pension for life. Those arrangements have not been changed as a result of the Social Welfare Act. The pensions are paid on a strictly actuarial basis, ranging from 30/- to 68/- contributory old age pension according to marriageable status and means.

Mr. O'Malley

Nevertheless the pensions from C.I.E. drop when they get the £2.

Mr. Childers

That was an arrangement made by C.I.E. with the unions at the time. There has been no economy.

Mr. O'Malley

But the £2 per week was not envisaged at that time.

Mr. Childers

I am aware of that. To give an example: a worker who retired at 65 on 12th December, 1960, whose income was £10 10s. 4d. per week has an income now, including C.I.E. pension and disability benefit — the particular worker I cite is entitled to this benefit — of £5 3s. 9d. per week. When he reaches 70 his income, including old age pension and disability benefit, will be £4 8s. 6d. That represents a marked improvement on the position heretofore.

Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde referred to the state of the rolling stock on the Wexford line. The replacement of out-of-date stock is a slow and expensive business. It is, however, regularly undertaken. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Esmonde because the Wexford line appears to be rather badly served. I shall approach C.I.E. again to see whether some new rolling stock might not be provided on this line. Rolling stock has improved very much on other lines.

Deputy Lynch asked that privileged tickets should be restored on the Waterford bus route to Tramore. That is surely a matter for negotiation between C.I.E. and their staff. I could not be expected to interfere there.

Mr. T. Lynch

Why should the Minister not interfere? He is the Minister for Transport and Power. He could make a recommendation.

Mr. Childers

If I started interfering in the way the Deputy suggests I should, I might as well run the whole concern myself.

Mr. T. Lynch

These badly paid workers are now paying £2 7s. a month as against 11/9 before.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy asked about an Order published recently in relation to C.I.E. hotels. That Order will come before the House for confirmation. Its purpose is to provide a separate company to run the hotels and catering sections of C.I.E. The intention is that there shall be a special board of directors and an entirely separate administration for the purpose of better promotion and greater efficiency.

While I have had a certain number of complaints of an isolated character with regard to substitute services, I must admit that the complaints have been very few. A great many people have told me that the substitute services are operating very successfully. It always takes time to perfect a new service. I will certainly refer to C.I.E. any complaints received for immediate attention. Should the complaints be of a serious character I should naturally take the matter up with C.I.E. myself in the course of the regular conferences held in my Department.

Deputy O'Malley spoke about the air service from Shannon to London.

Mr. O'Malley

From Shannon to Dublin.

Mr. Russell

It was I who asked about the Shannon to London service.

Mr. Childers

The service from Shannon to Dublin is linked with the transatlantic service and it is the best service that can be provided.

Mr. O'Malley

I referred to the unsuitability of the hour.

Mr. Childers

It is impossible to make any change at the moment. The idea is to get the largest possible amount of traffic from Shannon to London and from London to Shannon. I do not think more can be done in the circumstances.

Mr. Russell

I think it was I asked the question. The point is that you were building up a service which was giving good returns and you are throwing it overboard and giving it to other companies.

Mr. Childers

The Shannon to London service is building up all the time and more passengers are traveling by it. That is the real answer.

Mr. Russell

It is only for the benefit of trans-Atlantic passengers now.

Mr. Childers

The position is constantly under examination by Aer Lingus and I have no doubt that they will continue to examine it. Deputy Russell also asked about the taxi service at Shannon. The position is that taxis are licensed to operate from Shannon because of the difficulties experienced when there was free competition which resulted in some people being grossly overcharged and others being undercharged. There is a waiting list kept and it is operated on a strict priority basis. When further taxis are required those on the waiting list are notified.

Mr. Russell

I am informed that it is a closed shop and that you cannot get into it.

Mr. Childers

The number is limited to what is required.

Mr. Russell

I am told that the people who are in the know will not take short runs to Limerick from Shannon if they can get a longer run from a tourist.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy should give me that information if he has it. One hint was given to me about one case. If there is any suggestion of restrictive practices by the licensed taxi drivers the Deputy should give the information to me and I will have the matter investigated. At the moment I have no information that the number of taxi drivers is insufficient.

Deputy Desmond suggested that there was a plenitude of cement at Cork airport. He was incorrectly informed. There was a scarcity of cement and that is the sole reason for the postponement of the opening. I am more than distressed that there have been two successive postponements. One was caused by the unfavourable weather and the other by an industrial dispute which caused a hold-up of cement supplies. I am one who likes to get things done in time and the new jet runway at Shannon was opened a month in advance of schedule. Although weather conditions were bad there, they did not have the same effect on construction as they had at Cork but if we were able to get one runway opened a month in advance of schedule we should have been able to get Cork open in time, were it not for unavoidable circumstances. We have been pressing for greater progress and we have had meetings of all the sub-contractors who have to operate together in the provision of the electrical, communication, radio navigational, and telephone systems and other technical facilities of all kinds. This is an immensely complicated operation and we have had all these contractors together to co-ordinate their activities. Under the circumstances we have put the 16th October as the earliest possible opening date.

Deputy Russell asked about housing in the Shannon area. The position is that the Shannon free airport company have been provided with capital to erect 250 houses at Shannon. That is the number which is considered the absolute minimum required for workers who do not wish to live away from the area. An enquiry is being held to see what future requirements will be. That is an involved matter as it takes in the examination of town planning facilities and an examination of habits of working people in a new town area. The matter will be examined by experts from all the departments and a decision will be made as to future progress.

Mr. Russell

Does the Minister mean 250 dwellings or 250 houses?

Mr. Childers

250 dwellings.

Mr. Russell

Will the examination he mentions include the existing accommodation at Limerick?

Mr. Childers

Yes. It will include an examination as to whether there are any suitable sites in Limerick for that purpose.

Mr. Russell

There will be no overlapping of the facilities.

Mr. Childers

Exactly. Deputy Lynch questioned the size of the vessels in the Irish Shipping fleet. He suggested that the vesesls were too large. It is intended to have a fleet of reasonably balanced vessels so that there will be ships of a lower tonnage and ships of higher tonnage. The size of vessels is being increased all over the world.

Deputy Russell asked a number of questions about cross-Channel freight services. I do not think I have anything more to add to what I said in the Estimate. The matter is constantly being studied. The Deputy will remember that the cross-Channel Tribunal reported that they could see no evidence of excessive profits being made, that the British Transport Commission were losing heavily on freight services, but they did say that the existence of a monopoly in itself was not favourable either to this country or to the British. They said that they could find no evidence of grossly excessive profits being made. One of the difficulties is that if a firm pays £100 for the transport of its goods from the time they are dumped in the North Wall to the time they are taken up by lorry at Liverpool £40 of that money is spent on shore and only £60 of it at sea. That fact makes calculations as regards shipping costs very difficult. People tend to calculate the cost of transport from Dublin to Liverpool or to Rotterdam forgetting the fact that much of the cost is incurred ashore. However, the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Russell

Has the Minister any information regarding the negotiations which the Taoiseach spoke about four years ago?

Mr. Childers

I have no information to give about that at the moment. Deputy Esmonde spoke about the cross-channel service. When I thanked Sir Reginald Wilson for what he had done towards securing improvements I made it clear to him that there were other directions in which there was also need for improvement. One of these would be better catering facilities for travellers. Another matter is that of more punctuality in regard to these services and there is also a need for an improvement in the character of the seating and accommodation aboard the vessels. We are examining the vessels to see if the accommodation could be altered to make it more comfortable for passengers.

Deputy Esmonde also mentioned the question of oil pollution and I want to assure him that we are doing all we can through the international body concerned to improve the position. The main reason for oil pollution is that a number of the largest tanker-owning countries do not subscribe to the conventions governing this matter, including some of the most respectable countries. They have not engaged themselves to clean their tanks in harbours using the special apparatus available to them. I should also tell Deputy Esmonde that oil pollution can come from oil released into the sea 100 miles away and not necessarily from tankers close to the coast. We have had chemical evidence that a good deal of this pollution may come from oil spreading for a hundred miles or more.

I have dealt now sufficiently with all the observations made in this debate. I have dealt with a large number of queries by individual Deputies. Perhaps I might just mention one point raised by Deputy Sherwin. He implied that the E.S.B. could terminate supply of power to a household where the hire-purchase instalments to the E.S.B. had not been paid. That is not the case. Even although the hire-purchase fees have not been paid, as long as the bill for power and lighting purposes is paid, the current cannot be cut off.

Question put: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration".

The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 67.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Burke, James.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Russell, George E.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Tully, John.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Teehan, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl: Deputies O Briain and Loughman.

Question declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.