Vol. 237 No. 3
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is satisfied that the Cork-Swansea Ferry, when and if it goes into operation, will be adequate to serve the full commercial and other needs of Cork city and county and other areas which have traditionally used the port of Cork.
8.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will investigate the possibility of shipping companies other than the British and Irish Steampacket Company operating the cross-channel services through the port of Cork which that company intends to discontinue.
9.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he has yet had an opportunity of making a detailed examination of the reasons put forward by the British and Irish Steampacket Company for their recent decisions in regard to the port of Cork; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
10.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will set up a commission to inquire public into the reasons why the British and Irish Steampacket Company reached their recent decision in regard to the port of Cork.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10 together.
It has not been suggested that the Cork-Swansea ferry, which will come into operation next year, would be adequate to serve the full commercial and other needs of Cork and its hinterland. The B & I proposals include a through container service between Cork and Liverpool via Dublin which the company claim would provide cheaper, faster and more frequent service.
As regards the company's proposals generally I would refer the Deputy to my reply on Tuesday last in which I indicated that I am not in a position to make a further statement until I have been able to examine them fully in the light of the representations of the interests affected.
It is open to any shipping company to operate services from Cork should they consider that traffic potential there warrants it.
Can the Minister explain if this revolution in the shipping trade to which he referred on Tuesday last was discussed at Government level? Can he tell us when he became aware of the threat to the port of Cork?
The Government have been concerned with the changeover of the British and Irish Steampacket Company Limited and the necessity for scrapping a great many of their vessels and the purchasing of new vessels. This matter did not come before the Government because, in fact, it was the last proposal in the change that has been taking place not only in the B & I but in British Railways and in many other shipping companies throughout the world. The Deputy will appreciate that, now that I have asked the B & I to postpone implementation of their decision until 1st April, 1969, it would be quite impossible for me to reply further. I must be able to examine the facts and, in turn, the B & I will have to contact people in Cork, the merchants, the shipping people, traders and industrialists. They will also have to discuss with the trade union the question of redundancy which, unfortunately, seems to be inevitable in any event both in Cork and other places. It would, therefore, be impossible for me to go further into this matter except to say that I was aware of the tremendous changes taking place. For example, consider the announcement of the new British Railways plan in connection with container traffic between Dublin and Holyhead.
The Deputy will appreciate that I have satisfied the people of Cork by postponing this operation and the Deputy can be assured that I will give objective consideration to everything that is put before me during the period in which this whole problem will be re-assessed.
Could the Minister tell the House why he did not make, prior to the announcement by the B & I of their proposal, the investigations which he now says he will make. Would it not have been a wise thing to do?
I have already explained to the Deputy that this is the final part of the general change that has taken place in the B & I plans for freight movement. It is the final change that they propose. The general change that has to take place has been approved by me and approved, evidently, by the Government in that they have made available the necessary investment grants permitting the capital to be raised for the scrapping of the "Munster," the "Leinster" and the "Inisfallen" which were mixed ships and their replacement by ships of a more modern pattern, and for the separation of cattle-carrying from the carrying of passengers. The general plan was accepted and this was the last extension of the general plan that has been accepted by the Government. Indeed, no Government in the world could refuse acceptance of a general plan of a shipping company that was owned by the Government or the people of the country which involves the acceptance of the principle of containerisation. As the Deputy knows, it is almost true to say that nowadays the container is almost the most important single unit in operation, because of what the container does and how quickly it moves. The quick return container has now become almost more important for shipping in Europe and even across the Atlantic than the ship that carries it. What I want to do is to examine and assess the B & I proposals in relation to the views of the people of Cork in order to see how far we can carry out the wishes of the community in Cork and take account of the fearful changes that have taken place in the movement of traffic recently all over Europe.
In all this elaborate and intricate plan the Minister has described was consideration given at all to 150 Cork dockers?
Every consideration was given——
Not at all.
——by the B & I in this matter. As the Deputy knows, both in connection with British Railways and the Bristol Steampacket Company and the B & I at Dublin and Cork there is the same difficulty and the same problem. There is a problem in the deep sea dock in Dublin and in every harbour in the world where container operation is taking place. It is an important problem and it involves the replacement of people who used to carry goods in huge quantities on to the ship. They are now going——
It is a lot of cod. What will happen to the 150 dockers?
Can I take it from what the Minister said that he and the Government approved of what the B & I did and they approved of the steps for which he criticised the Chairman of the B & I in Leinster House on Tuesday?
That I have explained. I admitted to the House that I had stopped the B & I in this last leg and extension of their plan. This was a democratic procedure. Deputies came to see me and I acceded to the request of the Deputies of all Parties. I acceded to a request and direction from the Taoiseach that I should postpone this. This was a perfectly democratic procedure. Nothing has been done that cannot be undone. The whole question is postponed to April, 1969. This is a good example of where communication between Ministers, Deputies of the House and the public has been fully met in every possible particular. No capital expenditure has been wasted by the B & I. This is a postponement of a decision which the Deputy would not ask the Board to amend.
Will the Minister investigate the real issue where, according to our information at any rate in Cork, the B & I were making a profit in Cork but were at a very definite loss in Dublin and the Cork shift was in order to make ends meet in Dublin for them.
The Deputy must not have seen the accounts of the B & I. They lost, I think, over £300,000 last year. They will lose £300,000 this year——
Where?
——because, taking the Company's operations as a whole, the Deputy can be assured that there was no profit in Cork which would make a surplus in Dublin. I can assure the Deputy of that without having looked at the accounts in detail. When the B & I was purchased in 1965, at that time, as I already said to the House, there was no sign of how rapid this changeover would be in the method of carrying freight, and as a result the B & I were inevitably going to lose money for a period of two to three years pending the introduction of the new system. The Deputy can be assured that the idea that a profit in the Cork operation in relation to the volume of operations there could provide against a loss in Dublin is quite untrue. I can assure the Deputy of that.
I take it from the Minister — he did not reply the last time I asked him — that he, the Minister, and the Government approved of that, which included the wiping out of the port of Cork? The Minister has said so and the only reason he changed his mind was because Cork reacted so violently. The Minister is well aware that he and the Government are just as culpable as the B & I Board and the Chairman.
I never said to the Deputy that the Government made any decision. I said that the Government provided and agreed to the capital expenditure by the B & I. They were aware of the general changeover. They had given no decision and no agreement in the last leg, the last section of the plan which was in relation to Cork. I made that clear to the Deputy.
Is the Minister aware——
I cannot allow any further Supplementary Questions. There have already been ten. We cannot debate this all evening.
I would ask this last supplementary, if I may. Is it not true that the plans for reorganisation of the Dublin complex made it quite plain to anybody who examined them that they included the reception of the container traffic which should go from Cork by sea?
It was not clear to me at any time. This last section of the plan had not been determined by the B & I.
What was approved for Cork?
Question No. 11 has been postponed.
I should like to raise this on the Adjournment at a later date when the matter has been clarified.
The Deputy will give notice to the Chair.
Question No. 11 postponed.
