Deputy T. O'Donnell.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 42—Transport and Power (Resumed.)
Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration". — (Deputy McGilligan).
I offered.
I did not see Deputy Briscoe.
I notified the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that I intended to follow Deputy Tully.
There is no such procedure.
I did not think the debate would start without the Minister.
Deputy Tully reported progress and indicated to me that he was not resuming. I saw Deputy T. O'Donnell offering and I must, therefore, allow Deputy T. O'Donnell to proceed. I shall call Deputy Briscoe next.
Deputy Briscoe need not worry because I shall not be long. There are one or two matters with regard to Shannon Airport and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company in this Estimate in which I am particularly interested and upon which I should like to make a few comments. I note in the Minister's speech that the total number of passengers handled in the year ended 31st March, 1964, decreased by nine per cent and the number of landings decreased by 19 per cent. There is, however, a bright side to the picture because the number of terminal passengers embarking and disembarking increased by 16 per cent. With regard to freight traffic I note that in the first five months of this year, the total freight, 6,750 tons, is the same as the figure last year. It is quite obvious from these figures that a considerable amount of work still remains to be done and we must make an all-out effort to generate more passenger and freight traffic through Shannon.
Regarding the question of passenger traffic, I expressed a view about two years ago on this Estimate—a view which I have consistently held—that one of the means of ensuring and promoting increased passenger traffic through Shannon was by developing the tourist potential of the Shannon area. I include in that the west and south-west of Ireland. I advocated that the Shannon Development Company should pay more attention to the promotion of tourism and I am very glad to see from the Minister's speech that in fact over the past two years or so, the company has been giving increased attention to tourism.
On page 7 of his speech the Minister refers to the company's promotional activities and says that these:
... are designed to promote tourism generally and, particularly, to spread the benefits of increased tourism earnings throughout the west of Ireland where tourism forms an important part of the regional economy.
I am a little worried about that. He refers to the west of Ireland and I hope that SFADCO—as the Shannon Free Airport Development Company is called—will not confine its activities solely to developing tourism in the west of Ireland. I do not want to be parochial and I know that the company is not confining its activities to the west of Ireland and my fears may be completely groundless, but I was a little worried when I saw the reference only to the west of Ireland as there is a colossal potential in the south-west as well. I said two years ago, and I still hold, that the development of the tourist potential in the west and south-west is the surest way of promoting further passenger traffic through Shannon Airport.
The south-west was meant to be included. It was really due to an error in what I wrote that it was not included.
Thank you. I suspected that it was implied but I thought I should seek an assurance on the matter. As one who has been in close touch with the Shannon Development Company in regard to the promotion of tourism, particularly in regard to developing angling in the Shannon area, I feel I should bring to the Minister's notice a number of difficulties which we encountered there. One is the lack of a scheduled service between Shannon and Britain and the continent, but particularly Britain. This is a very serious handicap. If one attempts to organise groups of anglers to come to Limerick and Clare, they have for the most part to come in through Dublin. There may be a delay at Dublin before they can get a connection at Shannon, but even if there is an immediate connection, the additional cost is considerable. I have investigated this matter and I found that for a group of four people coming on a fishing holiday to Castleconnell, near Limerick city, it would be cheaper to hire a self-drive car in Dublin and drive down, rather than get a connection from Dublin to Shannon.
I was particularly interested in a newspaper report published a month or six weeks ago which referred to an application by BEA for permission to operate scheduled services into Shannon. At the time I asked the Minister a question about this application and he told me it was being considered by IATA and that the application had not yet reached his office. If BEA were to introduce scheduled services to Shannon direct from Britain, it would give a tremendous impetus to the promotion of tourism and lead to greater traffic through Shannon Airport.
The Shannon Development Company's activities in the promotion of tourism have been successful. The Bunratty Castle project has definitely been an outstanding gimmick and is paying very big dividends. I note that work on the folk park project, as an extension to Bunratty Castle, is proceeding satisfactorily. This will be an additional help in attracting tourism but I want to emphasise again the real scope for development lies in developing the natural potentials of this area. The most important of these is undoubtedly angling because there are in County Clare numerous lakes and in County Limerick on the River Shannon and other rivers there are outstanding angling facilities. In Britain, there is colossal interest in and demand for this type of holiday and it would seem that it is a matter of exploiting this potential but up to now, while certain efforts have been made, an all-out effort has not been made.
There is, too, the question of hunting, for which there is tremendous scope, particularly in County Limerick, and there is also a good deal of shooting. With these aspects developed, and with direct services from London, Manchester and Liverpool and other areas of Britain to Shannon, the passenger traffic through Shanon Airport could be expanded considerably. On the question of the efforts made by the Shannon Development Company to promote tourism, I should like to express my appreciation to the company's tourist officials for the co-operation they have given me and the enthusiastic manner in which they have followed up any suggestions made to them.
A scheme is now being finalised, or may have been finalised, to bring parties to different angling centres on the river Shannon and on the lakes in the area, and in 1965 we hope that there will be regular charter flights for anglers into Shannon. While a lot of brickbats have been thrown at CIE during the last few weeks, I should like to pay tribute to the efforts they are making in Britain to promote tourism. I saw these last January when I was on a tour of Britain. I was very impressed by the efforts being made and particularly in the new scheme which is now in operation, the Golden Holiday scheme, because of the fact that a weekly charter flight from Manchester is coming into Shannon. From inquiries I made I discovered that the bookings, even though it is only the first year, have been very good. This emphasises the point I have been making in regard to the absence of direct flights from various centres in London being a big handicap. I hope that the success of this charter scheme from Manchester this year will encourage a much greater expansion on the same lines next year.
When the Industrial Estate at Shannon was being established, one of the main aims was that it would generate freight traffic to counteract the loss of passenger traffic but unfortunately while the Industrial Estate has generated a certain amount of freight traffic, it has not lived up to our expectations in that regard. I think it was this time last year, when a special Bill was being discussed to grant extra money to the Shannon Development Company, I made a point and I think the Minister referred to it afterwards when replying. The time has come now when we will have to be more selective in the type of industry we sanction for Shannon Airport. In other words, there are certain industries there at the moment the products of which do not lend themselves to air transport because of the fact that they are bulky, and so on. The diamond industry is really suitable. Here we have small packages of high value which are ideally suited to air transport. Other industries, such as steel, would not be economic for air transport. I feel we will have to be more selective in our type of industry.
Another point which has often been advocated in the House, and which has a large measure of support in the Limerick-Clare area, is that perhaps it might be better if the Shannon Development Company sphere of operations were extended to include the region from Ennis to Limerick city. There are, in fact, industries at Ennis and Limerick which are utilising air transport for their products. In other words, it is not necessary really to have industry located right on the tarmac. Places in reasonable proximity to the airport can provide air freight traffic, too. I think the firm which is giving most business to Shannon Airport is one which is situated at Ennis.
A welcome development at Shannon in recent months has been the formation of two new air companies which will, as far as I understand, engage in freight business. Within the past week or two, we had an American airline utilising Shannon. I think it was Tiger Line. I would say in all sincerity that, while over the past four or five years, doubts have often been expressed about the future of Shannon, and most of us had doubts, the future of Shannon is looking bright.
I agree fully with the views expressed by Deputy Tully regarding the direction in which we should aim our tourist promotion activities. Like him, I feel that too much emphasis has been placed on one particular type of tourist. I agree with him there is a vast potential market among the ordinary working people in Britain. For the past couple of years, these people have been coming here in growing numbers. But there is one particular type of holiday which we can offer, as I have already said in speaking about the tourist effort in Shannon, that is, the holiday for which there is a tremendous demand in Britain, the angling holiday. I know the Inland Fisheries Trust was established by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture to develop inland fisheries. We have also in Bord Fáilte officials who are concerned with the promotion of angling. I have found in my efforts to promote angling in Limerick that there is a lack of coordination and enough emphasis is not being laid by Bord Fáilte on this particular type of holiday.
The Inland Fisheries Trust is concerned with amenities, stocking of rivers, and so on, but, as far as I know, there is only one official employed in this country by Bord Fáilte in the development of angling. I asked the Minister a question about two months ago in order to get definite information on this. The activities of the official in Bord Fáilte engaged on this work would include, in addition to angling, such things as hunting and shooting. In Great Britain, where practically 90 per cent of the ordinary working population have fishing as a hobby, Bord Fáilte have only one official covering the whole country. If this is so, then it is quite clear that Bord Fáilte are not aware at all of the potential market in Britain. I am convinced, from the ten days I spent in Britain in January, where I visited a number of angling clubs and travel agents, that a minimum of eight full-time officers could be gainfully employed in Great Britain promoting angling holidays to Ireland, and at least four men could be employed full-time here developing the various centres. I sincerely hope that a serious effort will be made to exploit this undoubtedly vast potential.
On the question of developing this type of tourist traffic among the ordinary middle-class people, Deputy Tully referred to the lack of accommodation. This is undoubtedly true. The lack of suitable guesthouses and the small hotel type of accommodation is a very big drawback. As Deputy Tully said, to qualify for a grant it is necessary to have a minimum sized hotel, that is, with ten bedrooms, and it must be licensed. If we are to develop this type of tourist traffic, and undoubtedly if we are to develop angling holidays, we will have to review this whole question of grants. I have said before that I am convinced that anyone who can provide a minimum of five bedrooms, half the present provision, should be eligible for a grant. There are certain centres in Limerick and Clare with first-class fishing facilities but no accommodation, and there is no incentive at the moment for people to provide accommodation. Instead of concentrating on putting money into luxury hotels, which undoubtedly have reached saturation point, we should provide this type of accommodation which is so necessary, and for which there is a big demand. The previous English ambassador, Sir Ian Maclennan, said the ordinary British tourist did not want luxury-type accommodation, but small hotels with a more intimate atmosphere, and guesthouses.
I want to refer now to the increases in pensions which have been given to certain categories of CIE pensioners who retired since 1956. This matter was discussed in a special motion in the Dáil last November. Certain increases have been granted to those people, but, in my opinion, the increases were absolutely ridiculous. I do not want to go into it at length, because every aspect of the problem was covered in the debate last November. I have with me a letter from the Secretary of the Limerick CIE Pensioners Association which I received this morning. He puts the matter in a nutshell when he says:
We are shocked by the proposed miserable increase in the pensions. ... As you are aware we have been agitating for a just deal for 3½ years, and this is the result. What an insult to decent men, who in their working life did so much for their country.
Something like 1,000 CIE pensioners are in receipt of pensions of 12/- a week. I understand their pensions have been increased to £1 per week. On the other hand, those in receipt of £1 per week do not seem to be getting any increase. There is a certain amount of confusion about the actual amounts of the increases and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the position. The pensioners are completely dissatisfied and I think this is a miserable effort to do justice to those people, most of whom are over 70 years of age, and many of whom are over 75 years of age. The differential is still being maintained.
I should like to refer to a few matters, and I hope the Minister will look into them. The Minister referred to the authority he gave Bord Fáilte to set up what are now called regional tourist companies. The Irish Tourist Association is now in the process of being dissolved and these regional companies are to take over the work hitherto done by the ITA, and to help tourism generally.
Some time ago in the Dáil, reference was made to the formation of those companies and it was pointed out—I joined in the protest—that it was wrong to finalise the articles of association of those regional tourist companies without consulting the local authorities who would be expected to give grants. No consultations took place between the regional tourist company for Dublin and Dublin Corporation. In the past, Dublin Corporation have given grants of approximately £5,000 to the ITA. Everyone will admit that if Dublin Corporation were to give grants of £10,000 or £15,000 to this regional company, they would be a great help to them and would represent a substantial part of their income.
We are unanimous on this matter in Dublin Corporation. We were sent a copy of the articles of association, and some of us read them through quite minutely, and we found, as you would find in some legal document for a peculiar kind of insurance company, in the smallest print possible, away on its own, that Dublin Corporation may nominate three members to be directors of this company, but that they will never qualify to become candidates for the chairmanship. In other words, Bord Fáilte are laying down in these articles of association that in regard to these regional tourist groups public representatives are to be relegated to the position of being second-rate citizens. We have written to Bord Fáilte about this, and we have not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgment of our letter from them.
This year we voted some £5,000 for tourism, but we have withheld payment and we will withhold it until that situation has been corrected. If it is not corrected, I can tell the Minister on behalf of the full membership of Dublin Corporation that we will seek other ways of helping tourism in the city of Dublin, and we will ignore this company. We recognise the value of tourism for the whole country, and particularly for Dublin city. Tourism means additional business for our business institutions. We want to have active representation on that body. We want our representative to help in the formation of policy and come back to the Corporation and try to get as big a grant as possible from us.
We have not seen the articles of association for other regions but there is a suggestion that for every £500 a local authority give to a regional company, they will be entitled to a member. That would mean that if they gave £1,000, they would be entitled to two representatives, and so on. But we in Dublin, whether we give £1,500 or £15,000 are still stuck with this maximum of three members who have no right ever to present themselves before their body for election as president or chairman of the body. I want the Minister to take note of this. It is an insult to any elected representative of any local authority.
I think I heard some reference to the articles of association being the same all over. I am sure that when the local authorities find what is in this article to which I have referred, they also will resent it very much and refuse to co-operate until public elected representatives are given at least equal standing with the handpicked members who are being included up to the present— handpicked by whom?
Hear, hear.
I hope I shall get general agreement from the House that what I am expressing is only reasonable and fair. It is ridiculous that that board should regard itself as a dictator over the elected representatives who in time, will be getting for them, or these regions, the bulk of their income. I hope the Minister will look into this. I see that he takes responsibility for the setting-up of these regions. I am sure this particular article has not been brought to his attention because I am sure he would not agree with it.
Another thing, and I hope I have the agreement of all those of us who are in the House at the moment, concerns a recent controversy organised by Bord Fáilte in connection with the canal—but it was a controversy organised by Bord Fáilte against another public body, the Dublin Corporation. I should like the Minister to find out why it was that at no time did Bord Fáilte seek to discuss this matter with the Dublin Corporation before going forth in their organised protest. They may have had good reasons for the lines they were thinking on; we may have had good reasons for the lines we were thinking on. At least, however, they should have contacted the Dublin Corporation and sought, with their officials, some kind of an inquiry into what they were thinking of and what the others were thinking of, instead of trying to bring about what might be called a war between Bord Fáilte, on the one hand, and Dublin Corporation on the other. This kind of conduct will have to be stopped and Bord Fáilte officials, from the top down, will have to realise that if they are not civil servants, they are at least semi-civil servants and should represent the public properly.
Many years ago, I expressed in this House the hope that our national air company would seriously consider, and as soon as possible, the bringing of air freight rates from this country to other countries to such a level as would enable air freight business to be developed. I know, and I have been told, that Aer Rianta cannot, of its own, fix the commodity freight rate below what other companies do as a result of the IATA arrangements. However, we have to recognise that we have a potential for exporting a vast amount of perishable goods which could be exported in large quantities if the freight rate or the commodity rate were made commensurate.
The previous speaker quite rightly pointed out that if you are dealing with diamonds, you can afford to pay whatever freight rate is demanded because it is a small parcel of highly valuable goods but it is another matter if you are dealing with other commodities. I know from my investigations abroad, particularly in America, that we could develop a trade in fresh meat if we had a reasonable commodity rate for it. We could develop an important trade in smoked and fresh salmon if we had an appropriate commodity rate for it. I hope the Minister will discuss this matter with the air company and that the air company will be instructed to try to force it to an issue at the next conference of IATA, if they are bound to it, as they appear to be, in such a manner as to have no independence whatever.
I remember, some ten years ago, taking up this matter with a foreign airline. That foreign airline was quite prepared to appear at a meeting of the IATA and to put forward a proposal to reduce air freight on certain items. To my amazement, when it was a case of Irish goods for export being affected, Aer Lingus, before they had even reestablished their transatlantic airline, objected. I cannot understand that outlook. I said on one occasion here, and I say again, that this airline which is highly successful, which gives magnificent employment and which is doing magnificent work, must not forget that it is here to serve the nation and that it is not the nation that has to serve the airline.
I cannot help but feel, in so far as CIE is concerned, that the Minister is more than anxious to get away from the problems that surround CIE. I do not blame him in many ways. In a matter of this kind, anyhow, I think the Minister should have been bold enough to acknowledge and extend his appreciation of the progress that has been made within CIE in so far as the tours services are concerned. Undoubtedly, CIE has made great progress in that field in the interests of tourism. I have often said to myself that if the same efficiency were shown in providing reasonable bus services for the people of Dublin, we should have very little to grouse about. Having said that, I would entreat the Minister to have a serious look at the bus position in Dublin and the cost of fares. Without a doubt, the tendency now is for CIE, as a national concern, to price itself out of the carrying services.
The Minister referred to the progress made with British Railways on car ferry services. That is something which I think we must all appreciate. It is a step in the right direction. I am disappointed to find that he is not yet in a position to say what exactly is or will be the progress in relation to services on the B & I Line. There is a great need there for improvement, particularly in relation to the transport of passengers, apart from anything else.
I know this matter has been adverted to before but we seem to be in a difficulty in that regard. Deputy Briscoe, towards the end of his speech, referred to air ferry rates and he was at a loss to understand why we, as a nation, through the medium of Aer Lingus, could not introduce a fairer and more attractive system of car freight rates. I am at a loss also to understand that. I can recognise the Minister's difficulty in dealing with foreign shipping companies, such as the B and I and British Railways, but I cannot understand why we cannot get on with the job much better through the medium of Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta.
Much has already been said about accommodation for tourists. We should take stock and recognise that the type of accommodation some people dream about, particularly the Bord Fáilte officials, is not the type of accommodation desired in this country, either by visitors or by the people living in the country. We should get away from the idea of foreignising or Americanising our hotels. People come here to find us as we are. They do not expect to find us dressed up. There is far too much of that going on at the moment. It is high time Bord Fáilte ceased planning for elaborate hotels. Sometimes when the hotels are established, faults are found and these are explained by saying the architect did not allow for the provision of certain facilities within the establishments.
Deputy Briscoe also adverted to the regional tourist organisations. The Minister should take a serious look at these organisations. He must take into consideration that these bodies have actually replaced the Irish Tourist Association. The Irish Tourist Association was brought into existence as a result of efforts, throughout the country, of people who had a serious interest in tourism. In the main, the moneys for this were obtained from local councils. Now, in the establishment of these new regional organisations, the efforts which were made in the past seem to have been forgotten. The people who decided on these new regional organisations are acting in a dictatorial manner, different from the way tourist associations should act.
The situation in Dublin is very clear in that regard. Apart from Dublin Corporation being withdrawn from these organisations, there are many other organisations who could help in the regional organisations. How were the people selected for these organisations? Who decided how they would qualify? I think I am safe in saying that there are a considerable number of people in the organisation who never took a prominent part in the promotion of tourism in Dublin, never mind throughout the country.
It is very discouraging that the organised trade union movement has also been ignored in the formation of these bodies throughout the country. An arrangement was made for them to have a representative on the Dublin organisation. This was changed without telling them what it was all about. They just said: "There will be one, whether you like it or not," and that is exactly the situation, as far as the Dublin Corporation are concerned. Dublin Corporation would expect to be one of the main contributors to this regional committee. You can hardly expect members of Dublin Corporation who are interested in tourism willy nilly to go along without prior consultation, and provide money for this new body. It has been inferred, not only in this House, but outside, that this tends to bring about another situation, that is, that Dublin may go out on its own. We have too many people going out on their own and it is important to have some semblance of unity in matters of this sort. There is certainly misunderstanding in this.
I believe Bord Fáilte, who made these decisions, should be asked to explain themselves and have another look at how this whole development of tourism will be carried out. I agree with the idea of full-time Irish tourist associations but I do not agree with the manner in which they have been set up. All the people who are genuinely concerned with tourism should be allowed a voice in this matter. We should not be ashamed to admit we have made a mistake in a matter of this kind. I do not for one moment believe the Minister was on the spot in connection with it. I now ask him to have another look at it.
When speaking about tourism, we must have a look at staff training. Bord Fáilte has set up a body through the Council of Education for the training of staff. That body has been selected from all types of interests. We must realise, in order to get results from such a body, that money is necessary. I ask the Minister to have another look, in conjunction with Bord Fáilte, at the amount of money offered. At the moment agreement has not been reached on getting money from the interested bodies within the industry. No arrangements have been made for the organisation of employers or workers to contribute in their way towards this training scheme. The Second Programme for Economic Expansion has said that we must double our tourist income by 1970. We cannot do that unless we have trained and competent staff. I hope the Minister will consult with Bord Fáilte and arrange that the Council of Education will be given more money for this work, having regard to the value of tourism to us.
We should try to create some liaison with the Department of Health to ensure that not only in catering circles, but right through the country, there will be an insistence on the importance of hygiene so that people will not get a bad impression.
Deputy Briscoe referred to canals in Dublin. I agree with him there should have been prior consultation with Bord Fáilte and the officials and representatives of Dublin Corporation before anything was done to discontinue the use of these canals. I also want this to be understood. Dublin Corporation were not consulted with regard to saving, or not saving, the canals. The members had different views, but I, personally, believe that the canals should have been saved. We are not the only country which has found that there is a tremendous tourist value in the development of canals. Quite apart from that, there are many people in Dublin who like to walk along the canals. Most of these people who are unable to get to the seaside, find great pleasure in doing so.
Coming back to Bord Fáilte, like the Civil Service and Dublin Corporation, they sometimes become the subject of music hall jokes. People talk about red tape. In view of the fact that Bord Fáilte are responsible for bringing people to this country and seeing they are satisfied, they, above all, must show there is an absence of red tape within their organisation.
I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Deputy Briscoe. At the end of his speech, the Minister referred to the regional tourist boards. This was a great conception, on which the Minister is to be complimented. Its financing and promotion was a good idea. Various groups of people throughout the country held meetings, elected chairmen, and were told that, eventually, so many people would be elected representatives on this board. But, suddenly, with a good deal of the hidden hand behind it, all these people discovered that the representatives were handpicked. I should like to know by whom. The previous speaker told us they were picked because they had some knowledge of tourism. I know a lot of them and I do not think they have any idea of tourism; but I know a good number of them are members of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is a shame to spoil a great conception by this kind of action. The Minister told us that in 1965 the board of directors will be elected on a proportional and democratic basis.
No influence whatever was used by me in the appointment of these committees, and no political direction, either direct or indirect, was given in relation to them. The Deputy may have seen the names of one committee, but I assure him the idea they are biassed in any direction is completely wrong.
It was a great coincidence.
Perhaps in some cases in some areas Fianna Fáil people were the most useful people to appoint.
I would not like to hurt the two unfortunate men I have in mind. Maybe the Minister was influenced by one of his Deputies.
I shall quote now from the Dáil Debates of 15th March, 1962. I shall not even name the Deputy. Perhaps he is the kind of man the Minister regards as a tourist expert. He did not agree with the Minister building luxury hotels. He said:
My experience of visiting hotels is that there are too many porters and pages and too much swank in them. Unless a person is armed with a bagful of golf clubs, he does not get the attention that is often provided for snobbish foreigners who come here to sneer at our way of life
Maybe that is the kind of person the Minister wants to put on these boards. They would put a fence around the country and not leave anybody in. I agree with Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Mullen that the Minister should look at this. The Minister is a great man for losing goodwill. He will lose an enormous amount of goodwill from the local authorities, especially Dublin Corporation, if he antagonises the people prepared to vote handsome sums every year. They are paying the piper and they have a right to know.
I am thankful to the Minister for his speech and for the notes he circulated to us some time ago. I have only a simple idea of running business. It is on the basis of the ordinary profit and loss account—you either make a profit or loss. But the Minister has an extraordinary way of presenting the financial results—sometimes it is the commercial results—of CIE, Irish Shipping, Aer Lingus, Aerlínte, the Shannon Free Airport Development company and the airports. I shall start at Shannon. We are provided with traffic statistics for the three airports, but the Minister does not tell us how much they are losing.
Deputies asked Parliamentary Questions recently and the information was given in the replies.
The Minister has given me a shock there. I did not think he was answering Parliamentary Questions. I am glad he has told me this. If somebody asks him how Dublin Airport has done over the year, the Minister will answer it?
I have always answered it. An answer to a question concerning the commercial accounts of the airports has never been refused.
Or concerning anything else?
I have dealt with that already. The Deputy does not want me to go over all that?
The Minister will be going over it as long as I am alive.
May we suggest that the two Deputies have this fight outside the door?
I do not think it would be any good. I have tried to reason with the Minister for several days. He is a most unreasonable man. He will not tell us. Now we are told to look back and find the answers to someone's Parliamentary Questions over the past weeks. That was the way we were treated this morning. Whenever a Minister came in here and read a brief, a copy was supplied to the Opposition Party. The Minister read his brief and read orders which, he said, had been placed on the Table of the House. He should have given some notice of that beforehand and have supplied us with them. No other Minister ever did this. I do not know what the orders were. I could hardly hear the Minister, who just raced along.
The Order of Business for the day was announced at the commencement of Public Business.
We Deputies are harried with requests from our constituents for one thing or another. It was good enough for us to know that the Bill for CIE was before the House this morning and that the Estimate for Transport and Power would follow it. I was under the impression, innocent man that I am, that that is what we would be dealing with.
The Minister shows what he calls the commercial results of these companies. I should like to ask him one question about the commercial results of CIE which we have not got yet because the report has not been published. The Minister says that when we ask questions about CIE on this Vote, he will answer them and I am taking advantage of that to ask him is it a fact that CIE gets a rebate of tax on diesel oil used in its road passenger vehicles. If that is a fact, will the Minister tell us how much he got back last year? This is a hidden subsidy for CIE and these hidden subsidies are running into millions nowadays.
The Minister expressed satisfaction that Bord na Móna is about breaking level. That is good, but we should have the whole truth. The whole truth is that there is another secret subsidy in operation in Bord na Móna about which the Minister did not tell us anything. I am informed that the ESB purchase turf from Bord na Móna for the turf-fired stations. When I was told that, I said to my informant that we all knew that and he asked me did we know that they were getting a very good price for it. Would the Minister tell us what is the price paid for turf by the ESB to Bord na Móna; how that price is calculated; is it by contract, by the ton or by the cubic yard? I also want to know how does the price measure up to the price of sales to commercial companies.
There is another question I have been putting to the Minister for the past seven or eight months and which he has not answered in the House. He gives us a figure of £445,000 as the cost of buses, but a reputable Dublin paper, the Evening Herald, on 3rd June, 1964 has a headline: “CIE to pay £900,000 for new buses.” I would like the Minister to correct that and tell us what the real figure is. Four months ago, I asked the Minister about the purchase of buses and the question was disallowed. I put it down in another form and the question was disallowed. Again I put it down in another form and for the third time, it was disallowed.
I asked the Minister if we had purchased buses which were over the legal length allowed in this country and the Minister would not answer me. The length of a bus that could legally travel the Irish roads last October and November was 30 feet. Without this House being notified, and behind closed doors in the Department of Local Government, the Minister or CIE asked the Minister for Local Government to make the legal length of a bus for the Irish roads 36 feet. I was shocked by that. I was convinced that the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Transport and Power believed in the campaign for safety on the roads, but judging by what Deputy Ryan was recently told in the House about the number of accidents that happened to Ministers' cars, I came to the conclusion that these Ministers do not give a damn about the safety of the Irish people.
Here we find the Minister responsible for CIE making our roads more dangerous and then refusing to answer questions about them. This practice of the Minister in refusing to answer in this House is a very dangerous one. We do not ask him to answer questions about the day-to-day operations of CIE but we do ask him to tell us something about matters, the cost of which would come to anything between £50,000 and £200,000.
We put a Bill through the House this morning that will involve a great deal of money. I approve of that because we have to look after the people who lost through the failure of the Equitable Insurance Company, but if any of us had asked questions about that matter, I am sure we would have been told that the Minister had no responsibility. The Minister should take more cognisance of the members of this House and of the Parliamentary Questions put down to him, should investigate what has been said in these questions and answer them. I have kept a file of my Parliamentary Questions and I have the satisfaction of saying that, with the exception of about two per cent of those addressed to the Minister for Transport and Power, every one of them was justified. It is this matter of ignoring public representatives that has got the Minister into his present position with regard to the regional tourist boards. He has kept away from the elected representatives of the people, whether in this House or in the county councils. The sooner the Minister makes up his mind to consult the local people, the better, and if he had done that in years past, he would not have the headaches he has now.
I want to know how much the airports have lost. I know they have lost a good deal.
The figures are published.
But they lost anyway.
The figures are published, even if they have lost money.
Sure they did. The Minister thinks a sum of £75,000 is small beer but a sum of £3,000 for my constituency nearly broke his heart. That is what makes me mad with the Minister.
The Deputy can get as angry as he likes about me. It does not trouble me.
I do not get angry with the Minister; I am always angry with him.
It does not trouble me in the least whether the Deputy is angry with me or not.
Sometimes I wonder who influences the Minister in relation to actions taken by some of the companies for which he is supposed to be responsible. Sometimes I think it is his officials. I have discovered that the officials in the Minister's Department were against the building of ships in the middle of a shipping slump. That apparently did not matter a damn. Irish Shipping went on and built ships and we find a substantial loss in their accounts. I wonder whether the amount we are writing off in connection with these ships is sufficient.
The Minister says in his statement that the results in Irish Shipping were considerably better than in the previous year, although earlier he had said the position was far from satisfactory. We are told the company had an operating surplus of £445,000 but, after providing an amount of £1 million for depreciation and so forth, there was a commercial loss of £556,000. We are told the improvement was due to the temporary increase in freight rates in 1963. The Minister apparently welcomed the situation that the loss was only £500,000. That was not so bad, but £3,000 could not be lost by CIE in my constituency.
A sum of £190,000 has been provided for grants towards harbour improvement. I agree that is only commonsense, but further down in his statement, the Minister said this:
The Government's Second Programme for Economic Expansion assumes that normally all harbours should be operated as commercial undertakings.
What about CIE? Of course many harbours in Ireland could never pay, but the Minister is pumping money into them. No private individual, no investment company, no bank, would put a £10 note into any of them with a hope of getting any dividends. Earlier today I had a brush with the Minister about the cross-Channel passenger services. What services? It is all Holyhead to Dún Laoghaire, Holyhead to the North Wall. They shove the passengers into these boats to trample each other to death. When a person calls to see one of the Tourist Board personnel in any office in England, he will be told to embark at Holyhead. They never say: "Would you like to go to Rosslare or to Cork or to Waterford?" Of course it is never through Waterford since the Minister's predecessor, the present Taoiseach, abolished the Waterford Harbour Commissioners.
We lost the passenger service to Waterford. I asked the Minister last week a Parliamentary Question about Waterford. I asked him if anything was happening between British Railways and CIE on the matter of a passenger service to Waterford. He told me he had no complaints. I did not ask him if he had complaints. I asked him if there were any negotiations going on. I know there are: yet the Minister did not see fit to tell the House.
At page 12 of his statement, the Minister says that he will endeavour to answer any Deputy who wishes to raise questions concerning road or rail transport. Will the Minister give an undertaking that if we put down reasonable Parliamentary Questions on policy, not day-to-day administration, he will answer them?
I am glad to see the subvention to Bord Fáilte is being increased. They are doing great work and I have no complaint except about the manner in which the regional associations were set up. I join with other Deputies in pointing out that a great number of tourists coming here would like to stay in boarding houses. I can only commend the Minister and his Department on the building of luxury hotels and the rebuilding of existing ones. They are a national asset. However, the Minister tells us that a significant new feature of Bord Fáilte operations is the provision of grants for guesthouses with not less than ten bedrooms. I submit the accommodation should be reduced to six bedrooms and the premises would still be much bigger than a private house. The Board's inspectors could visit the premises and satisfy themselves before sanctioning the grant.
These small boarding houses could become a great asset to the tourist industry. During the Waterford Festival, the Committee compiled a list of boarding houses. I pinned one of them on my public office wall and had many inquiries, not just one or two. That is a kind of accommodation tourists are looking for.
I wish to repeat a statement I made on a previous occasion. The Minister said there has been a drive to get people to visit the western areas. There is no need for that. There are many people going to the western areas. They are doing all right in the western areas. It would be worth while to draw the attention of the Minister, Bord Fáilte and people concerned with tourists and with advertising this country abroad, to the south-eastern areas.
I get Irish Travel every month. I am agreeably surprised if there are pictures of places in the south-east, apart from Cashel. We are told about the wonderful fishing in the west. Tipperary, Kilkenny, Wexford and Waterford are not mentioned at all. There is as much beauty there as there is in any part of the country. As far as fishing is concerned, there are more noble rivers in these counties than there are anywhere else—the Suir, the Barrow, the Nore, the Slaney, the Blackwater—all salmon and trout rivers.
Reference has been made to hunting. In these counties, there is available real hunting. Some of these much vaunted, publicised and photographed hunts just have the right name and have had one or two songs written about them. I mentioned this in the House three years ago and will mention it again. I went to a meet with a friend of mine who had hunted a good deal and had ridden everything but a National winner. I asked him what did he think of the particular hunting country concerned, about which he had heard so much. He said: "I would ride over it on a bicycle," and he could.
As far as seafishing is concerned, it is kept a secret that there is a fine harbour in Waterford, and drying beds for boats and that there are great fishermen there and fishing nets for game fishing. We do not get the break we should get in Bord Fáilte handouts.
It is good to refer to ancient history. When the ancient Gaels came from Meath to Waterford, the Déisí, they called Waterford the Harbour of the Sun. I do not know how they knew because at that time there were not meteorological stations all over the country. They did know because the records show that the greatest number of hours of sunshine in this country occur every year in the south-east, in the vicinity of that Harbour of the Sun, and that that part of the country has the lowest rainfall. I have never seen that adverted to in a brochure issued by Bord Fáilte. I hope the Minister and his advisers will get in touch with the Meteorological Office and confirm what I have said.
When the railways were run by people who wanted to make a profit, both in Ireland and in England, they issued week-end tickets, sometimes operative from Friday evening to Monday night or Tuesday morning. The Minister should take up this matter with British Railways. British Railways were noted for this practice. A passenger could get a week-end ticket which would take him from any part of England to any resort in Ireland, especially in the off-season, May, June, July and September. The same applied in Ireland. Week-end tickets were available, on which a person could travel from Waterford to Galway or to Ballybunion. There appears to be no initiative in CIE in regard to these matters.
The Minister has something to do with freight rates. The bullock represents the biggest business in this country. The carriage of bullocks to the market or fair or to the port is a very important feature of the national economy. It appears to me that nobody in an official position has got into communication with CIE with a view to having a conference with British Railways and the shipping companies to bring about a reduction in cross-channel freight rates. The cost of sending a bullock from Ballinasloe to Norwich or from Limerick to Birken-head is a frightful imposition. The Livestock Dealers Association are protesting about these rates. Apart from them, nobody seems to bother about the matter.
If it were a case of some crackpot industry that had been subsidised to the hilt, half the Government Deputies would be roaring about it and Ministers would be protesting that they would see that something would be done about it. These high freight rates represent a penal tax on agriculture. There is no use in the Minister saying he has no function in the matter. It is his duty to investigate it and to meet his counterpart on the other side, or have his officers meet their counterparts on the other side, with a view to having these rates reduced.
The Minister should look into the possibility of strengthening his arm and, instead of losing half a million pounds carrying foreign cargoes in Irish ships that are the property of Irish Shipping and the Irish people, consider the possibility of converting the ships into livestock carriers. Alternatively, he could suggest to the people on the other side that if they are not reasonable, the Minister will be forced to do this.
The Minister has invited questions from this side of the House. I want the Minister to answer two questions. First, what is the total amount of rebate of duty allowed on fuel, diesel oil, used in CIE road passenger vehicles? Secondly, what is the price charged by Bord na Móna to the ESB for the turf they buy, whether it is by the ton or by the cubic yard, and what is the price charged for the same turf to commercial interests?
I wish to offer a word of congratulation to the Minister on introducing this Estimate, which covers a very wide field and deals with transport, tourism, fuel, power and other matters which affect all of us throughout the country. It is a fine experience to be here to listen to the Minister reporting the continued progress being made in providing the nation with these vital services.
There has been a great deal of criticism, mostly unfair criticism, of CIE. This criticism has been levelled not alone against the chairman but against the representative Board, including a trade union leader, and the staff. It is injurious to the morale of the staff to have such charges of incompetence and inefficiency made here. I do not regard CIE as incompetent or inefficient. I travel mainly by bus in the Dublin city district and have met nothing but kindness and courtesy from all levels of the staff I have had occasion to meet.
Most of the difficulties of CIE are due to the expanding economy of this country. They have had to contend with the advance of motor transport and many of the statements made by responsible people elected to this House will not do the organisation any good. We must recognise that CIE has to contend with changing modern trends. I hope we shall see an end to that type of unfair criticism which the Opposition have levelled against an organisation which provides such fine services throughout the country and employs so many people.
I should like, however, to make a brief reference to the Dublin city bus services. The Minister recently indicated that CIE propose to undertake a reorganisation of the Dublin city bus services. There is no doubt there is need for improvement there and I hope the details of the reorganisation scheme will soon be implemented. I note the ESB is making continued progress. On a previous occasion, I mentioned here the charges made on old age pensioners. As one in touch with the conditions of old age pensioners residing in Corporation housing areas and in flats, I know their difficulties in trying to meet the high charges levied by the ESB. Now that that organisation is a profit-making concern, I would ask the Minister to use his influence to give some concession to that very deserving small section of our citizens.
I join in the protest made by Deputy Briscoe in relation to the suggested reorganisation of the Dublin regional council for tourism. It is a pity the matter was handled in the way it was and I hope the Minister will use his influence to bring about an improvement in relations between the sponsors of that organisation, Bord Fáilte, and Dublin Corporation. What is needed is a recognition of each other's position in relation to a particular problem and the need for confidence on both sides in order to resolve the matter of promoting tourism in Dublin. I know Dublin Corporation feel very strongly in this matter. Deputy Briscoe referred earlier to the controversy between Bord Fáilte and the Corporation over the Grand Canal. This could have been avoided by consultation.
I am glad to learn the Minister is of opinion that within three years the survey of the rural electrification system which has not yet been linked up will be completed and that by that time the work will be well on the way to completion. However, I note with dismay that he suggests that in a large number of cases the rates will be at the standard rate and, in other cases, at slightly above the standard rate.
I want to remind the Minister and the Government that, generally speaking, these areas not yet linked up are in the poorer areas of the country and for the Minister and the Government to decide that a standard rate shall apply to them is most unfair and unreasonable. I suggest to the Minister, to the Government and to the ESB that when they are within striking distance of completing this project of bringing light and power to all parts of the rural areas, they should not place obstacles in the way by saying that I shall have to pay more than my neighbour for the installation of electricity. Therefore, I suggest that it is only reasonable and right that the Minister should say to the ESB that they should instal the supply without any increase in the standard charge and, on the contrary, in certain cases, it could be much below the standard charge. Life, in remote rural areas, in ordinary circumstances, in the best of conditions, is never easy and the provision of electricity would do much to assist the people there.
Some time ago, there was a motion here relating to CIE pensioners. The Minister told us there was a Commission sitting and when they had reported, the question of what might be done could be decided. I should like to know what progress has been made in that matter and what are the Minister's intentions regarding these pensioners. I do not want to repeat what Deputy T. O'Donnell has already said but there is very grave hardship involved for these men and the Minister and the Government should avail of the earliest opportunity of rectifying it. I should be glad to know what steps he is taking to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
I shall not delay the House but I want to mention our canals and inland waterways. It is of very great importance to the midlands that the waterways should be kept open and the Minister and the Government should at the earliest opportunity state positively and definitely that it is their intention to maintain the canals and keep the waterways open to the sea. There is a type of tourism there which is a valuable asset. The coarse fishing and the associated activities can be a source of great revenue. Even if that were not so, the canals have a certain amenity value which I think the Government should take care to preserve for our people.
Since the Estimate was last before the House, one of the most active members of the Inland Waterways Committee, Harry Rice, passed to his reward. To him, this was the most important matter in the world. I am sure he was right and I ask the Minister to refer to this matter in replying.
There are many other problems connected with transport to which I should like to refer, but there is one connected with long-distance travel which is particularly terrifying. It arises when leaving Dublin or coming into it when cars pile up behind heavily-laden CIE or other lorries. This situation is a real menace because the lorries hold up a whole line of cars; nobody can pass, and when you come to a village where the 30-mile limit applies, you are practically stationary and the train becomes longer. The patience of drivers is strained and they are inclined to pass and the risk of accidents is increased. This is a very grave problem. The transfer of heavy rail traffic and carriage of goods from the railways to the roads constitutes a menace to the ordinary road-user and I believe something must be done to eliminate it. Recently, on several occasions I have been held up for as much as 25 miles. At night, it is physically impossible to pass at all. You must simply stay in the queue because if you do not, you will never reach your journey's end but will meet your final end.
I shall only make a few remarks in isolation as regards the canal system. In spite of other views expressed by people from Dublin, I have previously advocated that the canal system should be preserved. I do not think we realise once you go outside the precincts of the city, the tourist possibilities of the canals——
Hear, hear.
——both from the point of view of scenic amenities and coarse fishing which the previous speaker mentioned. There is another reason why I should like to see the canals maintained. When they were cleaned and efficient, they carried a considerable volume of water to Dublin city. Admittedly, in normal times, that water went to waste and flowed into the sea but it is valuable to a city to have such reserves of water, particularly in cases of emergency. Originally, I raised this matter from a defence point of view before there was any question, I think, of closing the canals and I should now like to urge that and other considerations on the Minister as reasons against closing the canals.
I can see no valid reason for failing to maintain them, unless it should be proved that the cost is utterly prohibitive, but I think much of the cost would be recouped by the organisation and development of boat traffic on the Shannon as a tourist amenity. That is all I wish to say on this Estimate but I did not want to let the opportunity pass without pressing that view on the Minister, even though it is not a view which all my colleagues in the House would share.
There is the perennial question of Dublin traffic and I should like to ask the Minister just this: with the increasing pressure of suburban traffic on Dublin bus services, is there any possibility that existing suburban rail services could be developed and increased, particularly on the north side?
The loops and halts are still available. I do not know what the economics of the problem are, but, having regard to some of the statements made earlier in relation to the Pacemaker Report and the reason for the balance as between length of line kept open and length of line closed, is there any possibility of suburban rail services being further developed? That would mean some of the halts would have to be reopened to take the pressure off the buses on those traffic routes running parallel to the railways.
I wish to refer briefly to two matters. First, I understand the Minister has not got available to him in his Department qualified engineers, other than airport engineers, to offer him technical advice. If that is so, then I urge him to remedy the position, because, in dealing with some of the semi-State bodies with which he has to deal, clearly matters of a technical nature come up for decision. I can visualise a situation in which there might be a conflict between semi-State bodies on technical matters and it seems to me essential that the Minister should, in those circumstances, have independent and well-qualified engineering advice available to him in his Department.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is a very large subject but I intend to deal only briefly with it. I refer to the question of parliamentary control of semi-State bodies. Recently in this House we have heard a good deal about this. I suggested at one stage that the Opposition were misdirecting their fire on this point on the Transport Bill. This is a problem which, as I said before, is agitating democracies everywhere. As far as this country is concerned, I am not satisfied that the institutions we have give us sufficient parliamentary control over our semi-State bodies. I do not think there is any substance really in the complaints that have been made that the Minister has not been answering questions in relation to these bodies. That is not the way to deal with this problem at all.
These bodies were formed primarily because private enterprise could not or would not do the work which had to be done. The Civil Service system was such that it was incapable of carrying out commercial activity. These semi-State bodies are, therefore, a hybrid organisation and the system that works in the Civil Service or in ordinary commercial enterprises is not suitable for them. What we have to ensure, first of all, is that we give these bodies sufficient freedom to operate on a commercial basis, having, at the same time, sufficient control to ensure that, if these bodies engage in activities or take decisions of which Parliament does not approve, it can be dealt with.
It might be worth our while to consider the setting up of a number of parliamentary committees, consisting of members of both Houses, the function of which would be to review the working of a particular State body. Let me stress that it would be a matter of review. That committee should not be confined in its inquiries to major policy decisions but should be allowed to inquire into what is now referred to as day-to-day administration. I feel rather strongly on this matter because I have seen things happen in recent years and decisions taken by some semi-State bodies, which were clearly unjust, and there seemed to be no remedy.
The Minister has no control because these are matters of day-to-day administration and, since the Minister has no control, nobody else has. In the case of a public company, the shareholders have the right annually to question the directors and make them answerable for their activities. Under our present system, we have not got that remedy for dealing with these semi-State bodies. There is one semi-State body, over which the Minister has no control, but I refer to it solely in order to illustrate the principle: within the past year, that body has engaged in activities quite contrary to anything that would be desired by either the Government or the Opposition here. It has actually used moneys available to it for purposes which I think could not be justified by any member of this House and there is no method of controlling this kind of activity.
What body is this?
I do not wish to aggravate the position at the moment by going further into the matter because I think we may not have heard the end of it yet.
I am afraid this is outside the scope of the debate on the Estimate. It is a matter that could be discussed on another occasion but not on the Estimate for Transport and Power.
The Minister has not got responsibility for the particular body to which I refer. I am merely endeavouring to illustrate the principle which, I think, does concern the Minister since he has responsibility for a number of semi-State bodies. The principle applies to all semi-State bodies. We must achieve some better method of control. I personally am not satisfied with the present method. I do not think the methods urged by the Opposition are an answer to the problem. I would welcome some form of inquiry into the problem. I do not think anybody can be satisfied with the present position. Neither has anybody a really satisfactory answer to it. I do not suggest my proposal is a foolproof answer. I refer to the matter because I feel it should receive some attention.
I am greatly intrigued by Deputy Colley's revelations and we shall all await with eagerness the next chapter of his revelations. If I know of some injustice being done by a semi-State body, I do not know that I would not find a means of invoking the powers of this House to put it right. Injustice should not lightly be tolerated.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister now to four or five matters. I want to join, first of all, with those who have already spoken on behalf of the canals. An enterprising public servant, and I do not mean that in any disrespectful way, believes the canals should be used for the accommodation of a municipal sewer. I want to urge on the Minister for Transport and Power that the canals of this city are not only a utilitarian asset for the possible transport of traffic but they are a great civic amenity, and it would be a disaster from the point of view of the city to allow them to be filled in for the accommodation of a municipal sewer. If my information is right, so ardent is this advocate of the sewer for his plan that he is quite concerned to establish that a large part of the city cannot exist without the sewer and that it is impossible to put the sewer anywhere except in the canal.
I want to urge on the Minister that he should adopt Deputy Colley's suggestion and arm himself with a competent engineer with whom he can confront this ardent public servant, for whose zeal I have nothing but the greatest admiration. But, lest he carry conviction to the Minister's unsophisticated mind that there is nowhere to put the sewer except in the canal, and bury it there, I urge him to take Deputy Colley's advice, get a good engineer and confront this ardent advocate with him.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dail adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 30th June, 1964.