Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Nov 1971

Vol. 257 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41: Transport and Power (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £16,806,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1972, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Transport and Power, including certain services administered by that Office and for payment of sundry grants-in-aid.
——(Minister for Transport and Power).

The eight regional tourism organisations continue to play an important role in the developing and servicing of tourist traffic. The 107 tourist information offices provide a comprehensive service to visitors and the computerised room reservation service which Bord Fáilte introduced last year is of particular value both to tourists and to providers of accommodation. Last year, the information offices serviced 1.6 million inquiries and booked 380,000 bednights. The regional organisations produced and distributed 3½ million pieces of holiday literature during the year.

The success of the "Discover Ireland" campaign aimed at promoting home holidays, will depend to a great extent on the regional organisations who have a major role to play in encouraging more of our own people to spend their holidays in Ireland. These organisations are involved in arranging for more entertainment for visitors. Notwithstanding progress in this field, I consider that we need a further extension of entertainment facilities for holidaymakers. There is scope here for private enterprise development working with hoteliers and the regional tourism organisations.

The short season and the scarcity of trained hotel and catering staff, particularly at peak periods, are still a source of some difficulty for both staff and management. Progress in the training of staff continues. Last year 1,000 young people received training under the auspices of CERT—the Council for the Education and Recruitment and Training for the Hotel Industry—and the council are working with the vocational education authorities in providing training for personnel already in the industry, through day release and sandwich courses.

I scarcely need say that the tourist industry is going through a very difficult period, mainly as a result of the unrest in Northern Ireland, economic difficulties abroad and rising prices. Tourist revenue in 1970, the latest year for which returns are available, is estimated at £99.1 million, a rise of only £400,000 on the previous year.

The general picture for 1970 was that traffic from Britain and Northern Ireland showed a decline while returns from North America and Continental Europe just about hold their own.

An official estimate of 1971 tourist traffic will not be available until next year. However, the latest passenger figures indicate that for the first nine months of the year tourist traffic from all areas, excluding Northern Ireland, showed an increase of 1.1 per cent as compared with the same period of 1970. It is expected that traffic from Northern Ireland will show a decrease of about 9 per cent this year.

The problems affecting tourism pose a serious challenge for everybody connected with the industry. There are some problems about which the tourist industry can do little, but this does not mean that they should confine their contribution to bemoaning the Northern Ireland situation or the effects of unemployment in Britain or international foreign currency crises. We must make an honest appraisal of the problems involved and identify those which lie within our control. So far as the State is concerned, the Government realise that any programme of tourist promotion and development requires substantial investment and it is for that reason that, notwithstanding a difficult budgetary position this year, they have allocated nearly an extra £2 million for tourism this year.

At the level of the industry, I know that there is a willingness to examine the root causes of problems affecting tourism and to tackle these problems in a workmanlike way. Bord Fáilte have organised meetings with all tourist interests in the regions to effect a full exchange of views and to develop a greater consciousness of tourism's needs. In undertaking this operation and in highlighting areas in which operators can improve their products and services, the industry is displaying a realism in keeping with the needs of the future.

Bord Fáilte have carried out an in-depth examination of their own organisation and a major restructuring designed to ensure the best allocation of resources and the most effective operation. In their marketing activities, the board have decided that in present circumstances the most fruitful areas for concentrated marketing activities lie in ethnic traffic from Britain and North America, activity holidays, incentive travel and promotional work in areas of Europe which have not previously featured in the board's plans. To improve the product, Bord Fáilte are placing a new emphasis on high standards and value for money and are providing an additional range of advisory services in such areas as campaign planning and integrated marketing. The board have set up a new conference bureau to promote conference business and incentive travel. In addition to the overseas marketing activities, Bord Fáilte have now embarked on the promotion of domestic holidays. This programme has my full support and I hope that the many Deputies who take a close interest in tourism will use their influence in encouraging home holidays.

I keep in constant touch through Bord Fáilte with developments in the tourist field. In addition, I meet the other State agencies concerned, the National Tourism Council and the various private interests in the industry. I am fully committed to the need for intensive marketing and promotional work, especially during these difficult times, as a means of counteracting the adverse factors affecting tourism growth. Deputies will recall in this regard that last year I arranged for Bord Fáilte to undertake a special additional promotional campaign in our main markets. More recently, at my suggestion, the board re-examined their budget for 1971-72 and have reallocated an additional £250,000 to be spent on marketing and promotional work in the current year.

Although I have dwelt on the problems affecting tourism, I am confident in the long-term prospects of further tourism growth. We cannot expect any expansion of earnings this year and one must be cautious about forecasts for next year, particularly in view of the continued unsettled position in the North. I believe, however, that we now have a better-organised industry than ever before and that the industry will prove resilient in meeting and overcoming the present difficulties and in resuming the growth pattern to which we had become accustomed in the sixties.

The Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited fall within my responsibility in so far as they relate the promotion of tourism and the development of traffic at Shannon Airport.

In general, the "Castle" tours and banquets promoted by the company have been successful in attracting considerable numbers of tourists. They are also a means of providing tourists with a form of entertainment that is truly Irish in character. The "Rent an Irish Cottage" scheme promoted by the company in conjunction with local interests has met with success since its first season. Building works are in hands or planned for further cottages throughout the region. The essential characteristic of this scheme is the active involvement of the local people so that as much as possible of the economic and social benefits will be gained by small communities off the main tourist routes.

So far I have been dealing in the main with matters relating to the activities of State sponsored bodies under the aegis of my Department. It will be appreciated, however, that the affairs of these organisations involving such matters as legislation, financing and general co-ordination of policies, give rise to a very substantial volume of work in my Department. In addition the Department were directly responsible for the administration of a big volume of legislation relating to road, sea and air transport. While developments and work in this area are impossible to quantify, the House may be interested to hear of some of the activities involved.

Under the Road Transport Acts, the Department regulate the carriage of merchandise and passengers for reward and this involves the operation of a licensing system for hauliers, coach operators, et cetera. Deputies will recall that under the terms of the Road Transport Act, 1971, the carriage of cattle, sheep and pigs was removed from the scope of the Road Transport Acts so as to allow their carriage for reward without a merchandise licence. The Act also liberalised road haulage in that it permitted each holder of an “existing carrier” licence to carry all classes of merchandise throughout the State with the same number of vehicles which he had plated on 1st January, 1969, without any restriction as to vehicle weight other than those contained in Road Traffic legislation. In addition, existing carriers whose area of operation had previously covered the State were authorised to licence an additional vehicle.

The Act came into force at the end of May last and I will be keeping a close watch on developments as the effects of the new legislation work through the transport industry. I would expect about a year to elapse before the legislation achieves its full initial impact. Thereafter, the need for further road transport legislation will be under continuing review. The measures which I have taken and such others as may be necessary in the future, seek to permit and encourage the emergence of larger and more efficient haulage units in the country with consequent reductions in transport costs. They will also help our hauliers to compete effectively and efficiently in haulage in Europe and in the European Economic Community.

The administration of merchant shipping legislation governing such matters as the standards of ship construction, load-line requirements, life-saving, fire-fighting and radio equipment on vessels and the certification of sea-going personnel is another important block of work. The Department have overall responsibility for the national sea rescue service network, which involves the coast life-saving service, the Naval Service, the Air Corps, the Garda, the Commissioners of Irish Lights and the Royal National Life-boat Institution. Co-ordination in the event of an incident is effected by the Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre, Department of Defence, Haulbowline, County Cork.

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution who operate the lifeboat service are, of course, financed by voluntary subscriptions. In order to sustain the valuable services rendered by the Institution, I decided to make available to the Institution an annual grant amounting to £10,000 in the current year.

The merchantile marine offices at the principal ports are responsible for supervising the engagement and discharge of seamen and looking after matters affecting discipline on board ship and health and accommodation of seamen.

I mentioned earlier the operation of the Shipping Investment Grants Scheme and the administration of the Harbours Acts. Under the Foreshore Act, 1933, my Department manage and control State-owned foreshore to ensure that developments do not take place which are contrary to the public interest.

My Department are responsible also for control of oil pollution of the sea by ships. The relevant legislation is the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts which give effect to an international convention on this subject. The convention has recently been amended and I intend to introduce legislation in the near future to enable effect to be given to the amendments.

Two further international conventions recently adopted are designed to deal with instances of major oil pollution following shipping casualties. Ireland took an active part in the preparation of these conventions and I propose to introduce legislation to give effect to these conventions also.

The administration of air transport legislation involves the certification of the airworthiness of Irish registered aircraft, the provision of the technical services necessary for the safety of operations at our airports and the licensing of flight personnel and ground engineers. The air traffic control service clears flight plans and maintains watch and control to ensure adequate separation and safety of aircraft in flight. The radio service provides communications with aircraft and is responsible for the provision of ground-based radio-navigational facilities for both en-route navigation and terminal area approach and landing purposes. The Meteorological Service, apart from providing information for aircraft, fulfils a general need by providing weather information for the population in general which is of course of particular interest to persons engaged in outdoor occupations such as farmers and fishermen.

In regard to air, sea, road and rail transport there are a number of international agreements and conventions to which Ireland has acceded. Compliance with these international requirements involves membership of a number of international organisations for which the Department are responsible. Membership of the European Communities will have significant implications for this country in the spheres of transport and energy and the Department have, of course, been associated with the negotiations on Ireland's application for membership of the Communities. A number of transitional concessions have been negotiated in the transport sector and attention is now being given to the preparation of legislation necessary to secure compliance with the requirements of the Treaties.

This completes my review of the principal services covered by the Estimate. If there are any aspects of these matters on which Deputies would like additional information I shall endeavour to deal with them when replying to the debate.

On a point of order, may I ask if it is in order or whether it is a serious discourtesy and breach of privilege that a Minister, in his brief on the Estimate for his Department, should include a scurrilous and unwarranted attack on a Deputy of this House whose integrity and competence is widely respected by all sides of the House?

That is a matter for the Minister. Deputies O'Donovan and O'Donnell gave notice of a motion to refer back the Estimate for reconsideration.

I move: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

The insertion of page 18a is unwarranted and is a breach of the privilege of the House.

I am not that sort of Deputy.

Mr. O'Donnell

I thank Deputy Desmond and I will answer the Minister later.

The Minister may wonder why I put down a motion to have the Estimate referred back for reconsideration. The reason is a serious financial one but the Minister will find that I shall not be unduly critical of what he has done for us, and he has done a great deal, but I will come to that later.

In the Book of Estimates which is a Parliamentary paper, the Estimate for this year for the Department of Transport and Power was £16,806,000, a net decrease of £3,500,000. I have no doubt that when this Estimate left the Department, there was adequate provision in it but I believe that this provision was taken out by the Minister for Finance who, while I realise that there is joint responsibility for everything the Government do, is the Minister who must sanction every Estimate. There is now a Supplementary Estimate of £4,500,000, which amount I do not believe is adequate but we will know in time whether it is adequate. In his Budget speech this year, the Minister for Finance said as reported at column 720 of the Official Report for April 28th, 1971:

My main concern has been to arrest the strong upward trend of current expenditure in recent years and to minimise additional taxation in the interest of safeguarding the National Pay Agreement.

In the paragraph headed "Conclusion" the Minister said:

I have now completed the budgetary presentation for 1971. Its main purpose is to retard the rate of inflation which has depressed the economy in recent years.

The Minister said also:

The concessions and tax increases which I have announced bring revenue and current expenditure into balance at £551 million which is £61 million or 12½ per cent greater than the outturn in 1970-71.

The comparing of the outturn with the incoming Estimate was false, but there was a more serious element of fraud involved. Undoubtedly, after lengthy discussions at Government meetings, the extra sum of £3,500,000, which we voted 12 months ago for CIE, was taken out. It appears in italics in the Estimate. The case I want to make is that when this Book of Estimates was being printed, which was in April of 1971, the Government knew very well how the losses in CIE were going. I accuse the Government of a discreditable fraud in presenting this document to us in this fashion. I spent 20 years in the Department of Finance and when we got the Estimates we often cut them, perhaps too much on occasions, but we did not ever do this kind of thing. It is further proof that the Government have no credibility whatever.

I am not blaming the Minister for Transport and Power for this, but that is not to say that he was not responsible, although it is unlikely that he was. What is deplorable is that this House should, prior to the Budget, be presented with figures that are inaccurate and fraudulent and that the Minister for Finance should then come here and claim that he was putting a stop to inflation. At the time, the innocent Deputy Patrick Power said "There has been a cutback in expenditure" but I said afterwards in private to the Deputy that minus multiplied by minus makes a plus so that on the basis of that kind of logic there was a cutback.

The Minister has been generous in the quantity of material he has presented to us. I do not ever remember any Estimate with so much material given to us. His brief runs into 44 pages and we got 35 pages of notes previously, so we have a total of almost 80 foolscap pages of material. My criticism of these 80 pages—and I think the Minister would agree with me on this point —is that on the whole there is very little current material in it. There are certain forecasts and a great deal of account of what happened in 1970-71 but there is very little about what happened this summer and autmun, very little material indeed.

Another way of looking at it on the notes is that there were ten pages about the air companies who employ 7,000 men, seven pages about CIE— and I am not suggesting there should not be; there certainly should be because it is a major headache—which employs 21,000 men, and there are two pages about the ESB, because, of course, the ESB is functioning the way a first-class company should function. I am talking financially now and I want to emphasise that. I have no criticism of the air companies technically but I have a different kind of view of them financially. There are 12,000 men employed in the ESB and the ESB warrants only two pages in the notes.

The Minister did give us some additional information in his brief and I want to go through that brief as rapidly as I can. Instead of a reduction of £4 million in the Estimate, or £3,500,000, as we had originally, there is an increase of £2 million. I am not grousing about the method of estimation or that kind of thing: what I am grousing about is the dishonesty. The Minister reversed the order when he came to his brief and put the ESB first. I think that is the proper order if we believe in taking the most important and the most efficient one first, but I want to ask him a question about his figures. He says:

By 1977-78 the board's generating capacity will be 2,800 megawatts, almost double the existing capacity.

He then goes on to say that the estimated capital cost of this expansion is £36 million. There is nothing wrong with that—it is assuming that we will want, in six years time, double our present capacity. I do not know on what basis that kind of calculation is made, but I let it pass. What I really began wondering about was the statement:

Further expenditure in additional generating plant totalling about £85 million is expected to come up for approval during the next three to four years.

If the Minister's Department cannot control it very well, surely the Department of Finance would have a say in the matter, though I am a bit doubtful? I met an old friend from the Department of Finance a few months ago and he made a most interesting remark to me about that massive Department. It is four times the size it was when I was there 20 years ago, in numbers, and he remarked to me "Half of us do not know what the other half are doing and the other half do not know what they are doing at all".

We always say that about the other half.

There is a point in the remark because if something expands and they are dealing with problems, some of the methods of dealing with problems today are not really rational. We could talk about various aspects of economics. I have no serious criticism of the ESB and the way it does its business. We all hope, to be quite frank, that this natural gas strike south of Kinsale will prove successful because it will save this country an awful lot of money. The Minister says:

For some years the board have had to invest about £20 million per annum in generating, transmission and distribution equipment and, within the next decade, they could have to invest a total of over £300 million.

At the end of the next decade, these may be very different pounds. The capital of the ESB is, roughly speaking, about £200 million at present, so that the Minister would expect it to be £500 million at the end of the decade. If money continued to go the way it has been going in recent years, it certainly will be £500 million. There is no doubt about that, regardless of whether these grandiose plans come to fruition or not.

The Minister goes on:

The scarcity of new capital may force the ESB to rely for funds for new investment to a much larger extent on their own resources, that is, on additional appropriations from an increased revenue.

As a matter of fact, the ESB is one organisation, far and away the largest organisation from the capital point of view, which has all the time provided a great deal of the additional capital expenditure from the depreciation of plant and so on which, as I would say, has been depreciated on a very conservative basis because we all know that generators last nearly for ever, they are practically everlasting, and this has generated—I do not intend a pun—a great deal of money: the fact that the ESB is depreciating its plant at a much faster rate than is necessary.

The Minister's brief continues:

The board must at least maintain their charges at such a level that revenue covers expenditure and normal appropriations.

They do, in fact, though there was a loss in the last financial year as we know, but that is quite exceptional.

I think there is a slip later in the brief where the Minister talks about holding electricity prices below the cost of production. I do not think that is meant and that holding electricity prices, I take it, just above the cost of production is more accurate.

I protested before about the degree of the interference there has been by the present Government with the ESB in the way of having international consultancy bodies, particularly from the USA. What the relevance is I do not know. If they were brought from Switzerland or from Norway, or some other small country, I could understand. The Minister ends up speaking about a particular group and he says:

This group is comprised of persons of high international standing in the diverse fields of activity which arise in the electric power production and distribution industry.

I have said time and again that I have seen no evidence of any worthwhile result and I am glad to see that the Minister in his brief about CIE was very cagey about what the effect of the McKinsey Report would be on CIE. I am glad to see him, for a change, applying a critical mind. There is no doubt that employing a firm like McKinsey to look into our railway system is really like employing a Jumbo Jet to take people across the Irish Sea. It is the same kind of thing.

Still talking about the ESB, the Minister said:

The rates are only 13 per cent greater in 1970-71 than as long ago as 1935.

This, of course, is a tremendous achievement. I think that in the main it could be said to be due to the fact that a fair proportion of our supply is still hydro-electric which was installed, even in the post-war scheme up in Ballyshannon, at very low prices. The civil engineering work at Ballyshannon was a model of what civil engineering work should be, due to the engineer in charge, Mr. Joe McDonald, an outstanding official of the ESB.

The Minister also said:

This is quite an achievement in view of the erosion in the value of money in that time.

I agree. He then says:

It is true that large industrial users in Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have cheaper power....

Why would they not, when they have water coming down from the Alps in Switzerland and the snows of the mountains of Norway?

The Minister goes on to describe the rural electrification scheme and I think we were all delighted with the rural electrification scheme. The strange thing is that that despised Government, the second inter-Party Government, made more progress with that scheme in the three years they were there than any other Government. It was one thing they never interfered with in any way except that they did get a contribution made to the Exchequer. They do not now string six or seven miles of line up a mountain to carry electricity to a few families. A new method has been adopted. Of course, it should have been adopted long ago. Taking electricity long distances to hamlets was a deplorable waste of public money. The Minister has described the new arrangements which have been made. They are excellent. He can claim, if he likes, that they came from the McKinsey Report. I was very sorry to hear of the death of the commercial manager, Mr. Ryder, a few months ago. He was an excellent official.

The Minister dealt with Bord na Móna. I do not always make negative criticisms. My heart went out to Bord na Móna during the terrible years of the 1960s. There was no method by which they could deal with the climatic conditions we experienced. They had a bad year in 1958 but by good luck 1959 was such a lovely year that the turf would have burnt out the generators were it not for the fact that turf from the 1958 crop, which was saturated was brought in to make a suitable mixture for generators. The loss they had in 1958 they made good in 1959. In the 1960's continuous losses occurred but they have now had three or four good years. The Minister has not really told us what has happened this year. I think Bord na Móna had a good year this year too. This is November and I cannot understand why the Minister did not tell us what the position is at present. I think it is excellent. Bord na Móna, unlike many of the other companies, are liable for interest on all their capital and they must pay back any moneys they get on loan from the Government. One cannot make any forecast with a company like Bord na Móna but I can say that for 1971 they will meet everything the Government asks them to do, including interest on capital.

That is right. We expect that.

I am delighted to hear this because the excellent officials in Bord na Móna were very perturbed. One of them said to me once: "If you lose money continuously people begin to look at you with contempt." This is one difficulty CIE have at present. They have a problem that is intractable and it does not matter whether the weather is good or bad it will remain intractable. I hope there will be three more good years for Bord na Móna so that they can ride out some bad years. In the year 1970-71 owing to the fact that the Minister continued to forgive them the interest that was arranged in the Act, which has now run out, they were left with £1½ million. I take it that by 31st March next they will have another £1½ million to add to that. The Minister said that this is the final remission under the 1968 Act. That is to say about £600,000 of interest. £562,000 was due to the Exchequer and was waived. I approve of this in the case of a company that has done such excellent work as Bord na Móna. I remember the first time I went down to Bord na Móna and saw the Bagger machines at work. There were six men working on them and they were laying out sods as best they could. Some years later I went down and one man was working the machine and the sods were being laid out as if on railway lines. Now, of course, they do mostly milled peat though they still produce a good deal of sod peat.

The Minister said:

At the same time as the Turf Development Act, 1968, was passed, my predecessor arranged for the appointment of a firm of consultants to examine the affairs of Bord na Móna, both from engineering and financial standpoints, and to assess future prospects.

Why? Do the Government believe that consultants are some kind of magicians? Most people have other names for them. I just call them charlatans. Most consultants are charlatans. There was a man in this House who believed he had solved a problem when he made a rotund sentence about it. There was another man in this House who thought he had solved a problem when he had set up a company to deal with it. That is not the way to solve problems. This one will not solve them either. Per Jacobson, who was Chairman of the World Bank, came over here on the Banking Commission in the middle thirties. He was asking such silly questions that Professor George O'Brien asked: "Could we not arrange to give him a copy of the statistical abstract?" I presume he thought, perhaps correctly, that we were the same as some parts of Central Africa. Once he had time to go through this statistical abstract he did not ask so many silly questions. I am not saying he was a silly man at all but he was asking silly questions because he was from Sweden and he did not know the first thing about this country. I am not saying he did not know plenty about banking. I suppose he learned a great deal more afterwards. The Minister said:

The consultants have recommended a restructuring of the capital of the board and this is receiving active consideration at the present time.

I do not know what that means unless it is that they have recommended that the capital of the board should be reduced or increased. I like plain words that I can understand. Does "restructuring" mean an increase or decrease?

I shall explain that in my reply.

The Minister then came to air companies. One does not like to be too critical. When I asked an awkward question about the ships that are being built for Irish Shipping the other day, the Taoiseach said I was trying to tear down the institutions of State. I am afraid a great deal of harm has been done to what I regard as the most important institution of State in recent years—this Parliament. I was not denigrating anything. I was talking about a different thing altogether. I cannot understand why the two jumbo jets were bought. None of the technical people in Aer Lingus is responsible. The responsibility rests essentially with the higher management—the board of directors. I cannot understand why they were bought in view of the fact that the Boeing 707s had been so successful. I cannot understand why they did not buy four Boeing 707s which they would have got for about half the money. I just do not understand this. This comes from the euphoria. Such euphoric forecasts as the Minister made this year refer to the distant future. They do not refer to this year. The Minister does not talk much euphoria about this year, and that is a merit.

The Minister goes on to say:

While the Irish Air Companies passed through last year without serious setbacks, it is clear that the auguries for the current year are far from good...

The current year is nearly over. This is what I objected to earlier on. Why does the Minister not give us some information about the current year? For example, is what I have been told correct, that the jumbo jets are being wintered in Texas because the climate is suitable there in the same way as, if you put a couple of horses out to grass, you put them in a suitable place or, in the summer, hunters are put on soft land, in a boggy area, as far as possible? This is why we have the jumbo jets wintering in Texas. What I cannot understand is why what was happening could not have been reasonably foreseen. There is an answer to one part of it, that the big American company with which Aerlínte had a contract had folded up. That is an explanation of part of it.

There is another sentence in the Minister's speech:

The situation for Aerlínte is aggravated by the increase in aircraft capacity as a result of the introduction of the jumbo jets.

One of the people working in Aer Lingus said to me some months ago that the cost per seat is much lower in the jumbo jets than in the ordinary Boeing jets but the fact is that if you have a whole lot of seats empty, the fact that they are cheaper means that you get nothing against the lower costs, whereas in the other case, although the cost per seat might be higher, a bigger percentage of seats will be filled both ways. I think it is 150 seats in an ordinary Boeing jet against 350 in a jumbo—something like that. It is all right to talk but we are a small country and I do think we ought to walk carefully and to cut our cloth according to our measure.

On page 15 of the Minister's brief there is a remarkable omission, as if the Minister was going to put in a figure and then his heart failed; he had not the gumption to face up to it. There is a vacancy there and it is quite obvious that as this brief was being prepared the figure was in and something happened at the last minute and the figure was taken out. I quote:

I must nevertheless point out that Aerlínte are likely to suffer a blank loss this year and also next year.

Why were we not told the truth? It is much better. It should be faced up to.

Why were we not told what the figure was? There is certainly space enough for putting in a couple of million there. I do not understand why this kind of thing is done.

In the middle of the financial year.

It is now the end of November. We are two-thirds of the way through the financial year and, there is no question about it, with their computers and all this modern equipment they are always boasting about, they could give figures right up to now. If the jumbo jets are out to grass in Texas, the cost of keeping them out to grass will be a very clear figure.

I then come to a point that is a purely financial point that has often struck me. I think of the cost of the roads which is entirely met out of the Road Fund which comes from the taxes we all pay on our cars. Of course, one can see the result out at Dublin Airport, which I now call megalopolis. I used to be like a taxi driver at the airport when my family were younger and I used to be constantly driving them out there. I am glad to say that that is nearly over. Now I find the greatest difficulty in seeing how to get in and how to get out. One might as well be trying to get in and out of New York city. I am not exaggerating. In my opinion what is there is not necessary to the extent that it is there.

There is a remark later on in the Minister's speech:

The present runway system at Dublin Airport is nearing the end of its useful life...

I will make a good bet that there are a lot of roads around Dublin city with much bigger potholes in them than there are on the runway systems at Dublin Airport.

The Minister says:

The Dublin passenger terminal project consists of a new terminal building and pavilion, and a two level road system...

There is another word in this which occurred also in the Minister's notes.

What are airbridges in this context? It occurs at the top of page 17 of the Minister's speech:

Work on the installation of airbridges is in progress.

Are these the things we walk out on when we are getting on to a plane?

There are special ones for the jumbo 747's because of their height off the ground.

You walk up a kind of movable stairs. Are these the airbridges?

There are specially expensive ones for the 747's, by reason of their height off the ground.

Everything connected with the 747 is expensive. Let us be clear about that. That is one thing that we can be quite certain about. I do not mind admitting that the whole thing is outside my understanding.

The Minister lays down certain conditions about air charter regulations. I quite agree with him.

Now I come to CIE. I am following the Minister as he made his speech to make such comments as I feel ought to be made. The increased deficit is £6 million, as against £3 million last year and the year before. All the Minister has done, really, is to make sufficient provision to bring the subsidy this year up to what it was last year. He was good enough to give us, although it was hard enough to make it out, a stencil showing an increase of £1½ million this year on last year. The Minister certainly supplied us with plenty of material in this stencil copy of the revised Estimate. This shows an increase of £1,484,000. Does that mean that the Minister is, in fact, providing an additional £1½ million this year for CIE as compared with the provision last year?

All I can say is they will need it. The most interesting statement by far in the Minister's description of what is happening in CIE is the statement that, for the first time, a loss amounting to £265,000 was incurred in 1970-71 on the Dublin city bus services. This will shock the unfortunate people who have to use these services. What has happened is, of course, that the huge increases in fares have compelled more and more people to use their own cars, with all the resultant congestion at certain hours in the morning and again in the evening. The chaos is fantastic. I was going home one evening recently at about 6.45 p.m. I would have thought that the traffic would have eased somewhat by then, but I was afraid of my life over all the four or five miles that I would hit someone or someone would hit me. There was a continuous stream of traffic. Before the fares increased so much, people working in offices used their cars at the weekend to take their families out; now they are using their cars to travel to and from work and that has increased the traffic congestion. If the trend continues this city will become impossible to live or work in. The fact is—I take it the Department are well aware of this—the point of no return has been reached as far as CIE urban fares are concerned. My recollection is that receipts for passenger fares on country buses are quite good. I am speaking from recollection now. My recollection is that the returns last year were quite reasonable. It is an extraordinary change from the days when the late Deputy Seán Lemass used the Dublin bus services, which were making a profit of £750,000, to subsidise the country buses. The tuppeny fare was quite normal at that time. I think I have made my point.

The Minister says in his brief that the consultants, McKinsey & Co., who recently completed an investigation into the deterioration in CIE's financial position, found no scope for immediate significant savings. Indeed, they did not. I admit I read only the summary with care and all they said was that they could say nothing. With a loss of £9 million on the railways, they could say nothing. Let us be fair to them, they did not claim any great achievement.

The Minister indulges in a peculiar piece of reasoning. I suppose it is necessary to make the best case one can when one has a poor case to make. The Minister says that an interest payment of £804,000 will fall due for payment by CIE so the net draw on the Exchequer will amount to only £2½ million. I suppose it is better than £4 million anyway.

There are times in this House when one has to be reticent. I understand that the B & I Company, who had a reasonably good year last year, are having a very bad year this year.

That is not true. They are, in fact, likely to have a better year this year.

I hope they have.

At this stage I can say that the profit figure will be better this year than it was last year.

Again, it depends on what one is comparing it with. An additional £3 million is being taken up in shares. If you get a bigger net return from that it could still be a lower rate of return than you would get on the smaller capital.

I hope on both counts it will be up this year. This company are doing particularly well.

Good. I am glad to hear it. The Minister said that this should help to reduce the imbalance between the company's loan and equity capital which, until this year, had remained at £1.6 million. There are references then to the livestock trade: Irish Shipping Limited, who operate in the deep sea trade, had their most successful year to-date. I wonder. If the real value of money were calculated, I wonder if they have had their most successful year to-date, as compared with the profit they made in the year of "Suez". I just wonder and I beg leave to doubt whether, in real terms, they had a better year. If people want to use arithmetic in this kind of situation, that is one way of doing things, but it does not give one the real answer. I hope they succeed in getting a ship to run the Normandy ferry service. It is regrettable they should have baled out, especially when they were probably making a fair profit. They will, no doubt, stick it into the English Channel, or somewhere like that, where it will be packed to the scuppers every time it crosses the English Channel. Remembering the Bill that is going through this House at the moment, Fóir Teoranta, it was regrettable the Government did not face up to the position of Hibernian Transport. I take it they examined it carefully.

It was too bad.

The failure of a company of that size, which had such a good previous record, shakes confidence. I am not saying the Government are not well aware of that. I notice that they walk like mice on occasions. I am not saying I do not approve of that. I approve of it very much. If you are walking on thin ice it is better to walk gently on it.

There is a good deal in the Minister's statement about harbours. Down the years I have had considerable doubts at times about the money spent on harbours in certain parts of the country. We do not seem to get very great returns from it.

I want to make a few remarks about tourism. I do not understand how Bord Fáilte were allowed to make the commitments they did make without there being some check on them. It created untold trouble and showed their arrogance in the sense that they must have thought the Department of Finance were dead and gone, as they very nearly were. They have run many people into serious trouble if anything like the number of hotels which are supposed to be up for sale are, in fact, for sale. I would like to know why there is this increase of £1.3 million for the provision and development of hotel accommodation. Is it to liquidate previous commitments?

Yes, or go a long way towards that.

One cannot but be impressed by the improvements which have taken place in towns like Bantry, Cahirciveen, Westport and Clifden.

The traffic in Salthill sometimes reminds me of the traffic in O'Connell Street but it cannot be denied that tourism has brought prosperity to many of these places.

A number of years ago Elizabeth Nicholls wrote regularly in the Observer about conditions for tourists here but recently she has been saying that we will price ourselves out of the tourist market and, of course, there is no question about that. Whoever thought of establishing guesthouse and farmhouse accommodation did a great deal of good for the tourist industry. As a nation we are not as careful about what we spend our money on as other people are but one can meet quite well-off people staying in farmhouse and guesthouse accommodation. I feel this has been the most successful angle of the tourist effort in recent years.

The hotel guide produced by Bord Fáilte did not give information about when the high season begins and ends this year. I object to this very much. My wife and I were travelling home from Achill and as I have got rather lazy we decided to spend the night in a rather nice town en route to Dublin. I asked what we would be charged for the night and when I was told I remarked that that was not the figure quoted in the hotel guide. This was not denied but the people in the hotel pointed out the only room they had was one with a bathroom. We went down the town to a very expensive hotel where we had a nice cup of tea and then we drove on home to Dublin. That is an example of what an easygoing fellow like myself will do. When I started out from Achill I had no intention of driving to Dublin in the one day but I suppose I saved about £5 or £6 by not staying in the hotel.

In previous years the hotel guide always gave the date on which the high season began and ended. The high season was usually from 1st May to 30th September and the low season from 1st October to 30th April. Why was this information taken out of the guide this year?

I agree fully with the Deputy. Bord Fáilte are going back to the old format next year.

I have scored a bull's eye. If one tries long enough one eventually succeeds. I suppose I was not the only person to feel strongly about it.

Many people did.

Tourists who are golfers find it very difficult to get into a golf club. A large number of golf clubs said that if a group of four Americans, Germans or other tourists came to play golf they would be given a special rate. The purpose of this was essentially to sell the country and get across the idea that this was a sporting country in the present political situation where the country has a reputation of being a disturbed place. The fact is that nothing was done about this suggestion.

I understand that people in a tourist business spend 30 per cent of their takings on promotion. It has been pointed out to me that the commercial banks, who lend about £40 million one way or another, do not put one penny into tourism; they put money into fancy buildings around Dublin instead. Many banks in New York have marble 50 feet high on the ground floor. There must be something about human nature and banking that makes bankers believe if they have large palatial buildings people will bank their money with them.

The Irish Car Hire Company were sold this year. I know it is the policy of this Government never to interfere with what a private person does with his own business. In fact, there was a company here who were being pressed hard by an American company named Avis who have set up a fake Irish company for the hire of cars. They pressed Ryans Car Hire Company so hard that the Ryan company sold out to Hertz. The name Ryan was retained but that has no significance whatever. There is a lot of trouble about Japanese tyres at present. I wonder if these American car hire companies are using Japanese tyres? It would not surprise me if they were. They have only one interest in the business, namely, to make something out of it.

I should like to thank the Minister for the amount of material he gave us. I am sorry he did not bring some of it more up-to-date. Had he done so I would have more admiration for him. It is not much use telling Members of the House what happened up to 31st March last. At any rate, I am glad I scored a bull's eye about the tourist guide.

Mr. O'Donnell

This is a major and very important Estimate covering a wide field. It is well to point out that in terms of direct employment the four major bodies covered in this Estimate —CIE, ESB, the air companies and Bord na Móna—provide jobs for 40,000 people, representing two-thirds of total employment in State-sponsored bodies. The Minister for Transport and Power is responsible for 11 or 12 State-sponsored bodies. That a Minister responsible for so many State-sponsored bodies, covering a very wide field of activities and involving highly technical operations, should submit to this House an annual review consisting of 43 pages—an average of three or four pages for each State-sponsored company—is deplorable and ludicrous. How can any Opposition Deputy, or anyone else who has not access to the information the Minister has, attempt a realistic analysis or a considered assessment of the performance of these companies? I have said this before in this House and I wish to avail of the opportunity to say so again.

When one considers the considerable amount of taxpayers' money involved in all the activities under the control of the Department of Transport and Power, surely we are entitled to full details regarding expenditure. The time is long overdue for the Government to introduce some form of public accountability. On every occasion I have spoken in the last few years about this Department, I have recommended the setting up of parliamentary committees as they exist in Britain. They would examine in detail the performance of each State body, just as the Committee of Public Accounts carry out an examination of all the Departments. The Minister has made a gesture towards recognising this demand for public accountability in that the annual report of Bord Fáilte this year contains details of the people to whom grants have been paid for hotels.

If the Minister is not prepared to give a detailed analysis of the performance of these companies, how can he expect Deputy O'Donovan or myself to do so? We have not access to information as he has; we have not got civil servants to prepare briefs for us. I have estimated that if I were to do an analysis and contribute to this debate in a way that would satisfy myself, it would take me ten hours, that is, allowing one hour for each State company. I have no intention of doing this. This annual debacle on the part of a Minister responsible for so many State bodies is intolerable. I make no apologies for mentioning this. I have done so before and I shall do so again if that is necessary.

The Minister's brief consisted of 42 pages. Despite the brevity of his statement in relation to his responsibilities, it is extraordinary that he has found space for two paragraphs, totalling almost one page, to deal with Deputy Tom O'Donnell. I have been told by some of my senior colleagues that it is unprecedented in the annuals of this House that a Deputy has figured so prominently in a Departmental Estimate and I have been complimented by my colleagues on having achieved this distinction. I being to think that I must have been a much more effective Opposition spokesman on Transport and Power than I realised. This morning the Minister went to the trouble of adding an additional page to the Estimate. There was a long paragraph dealing with me on page 18 but the Minister added another page, page 18a, on which there was another long paragraph dealing with me.

I should like to publicly thank Deputy Desmond. I have no doubt his reaction is the reaction of every decent person in this House and in the country. The Minister for Transport and Power spoke about credibility and my political reputation. The Minister is the last person in this House who should talk about credibility or who should dare to question any Deputy's integrity. I am proud of the confidence the people of east Limerick have reposed in me. In 1961 I was elected without reaching the quota and I am proud of the fact that for the first time in the history of the State I headed the poll in east Limerick for Fine Gael. I have no doubt that not only will I do this again at the next election but that I shall do it with a substantially larger vote.

Since the Minister threw in the ball and since he stooped to guttersnipe tactics I am not going to let him away with it. I apologise to the Chair that for the first time in my ten years in this House I have had to indulge in political mud-slinging. I have always avoided this and tribute has been paid to me by all sides of this House that I have dealt objectively with issues and have avoided introducing personalities. However, I cannot let this guttersnipe attack——

I suggest that the custom to which the Deputy refers is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Mr. O'Donnell

Allegations have been made against me and I presume I am entitled to answer them.

Acting Chairman

In so far as they refer to the Estimates I suppose we cannot deny the Deputy that right.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister has thrown in the ball and I am going to take him up on this. I shall expose the Minister for what he is. I shall expose the dirty tactics he has used not only in the last 24 hours but the tactics engaged in by the Minister, together with his stooge, Deputy Stephen Coughlan. I challenge the Minister here and I shall refer him to a meeting of the Limerick City Council on Monday night last. I quote from The Limerick Leader dated Wednesday, 24th November. In the course of a tirade against me, Deputy Coughlan said:

The Minister said to me last week that the mayor's deputation had apologised for the remarks of Deputy O'Donnell when they met the Minister last week.

This is a statement by Deputy Coughlan. I am proud of the fact that in his reply the mayor said:

I am sorry that the Deputy has raised this matter at all but I must, at the same time, deny that any apology has been made to the Minister.

The Minister talks about sabotage. He talks about a sell-out. I know what is wrong with the Minister. He refers to my Galway speech in which I challenged him and the Government to explain whether or not a deal had been done in relation to the landing rights. The Minister refers to my Limerick speech of last week. I have it here. I want to put the record straight. I want to quote from The Limerick Leader. I am getting a fantastic amount of publicity about this in Limerick. Even the corporation considered it important enough to hold a special meeting.

My Limerick speech to which the Minister refers is quoted in The Limerick Leader:

In a statement issued in Limerick last night Mr. Tom O'Donnell, T.D., said he wanted to issue a final warning to the Government that any compromise on the landing rights issue that would allow even one US carrier into Dublin would be tantamount to a sellout.

I take it that the Minister can understand English and can read English. Does the Minister question my right as an Opposition Deputy, and as Opposition spokesman for Transport and Power, to issue a warning to the Government? I make no apology to anyone for having issued that warning to the Government. When the Minister accuses me of trying to sabotage the national interest I must tell him what my crime is and I gladly plead guilty to it. My crime is that I have exposed the incompetence, the blundering stupidity and total lack of leadership and initiative shown by the Government and particularly by the Minister for Transport and Power on this whole issue of the landing rights.

A bigger crime still which I have committed is that I have refused to play ball with the Minister to cover up his own incompetence and stupidity. I have refused to play ball in the same way that Deputy Coughlan has played ball, and certain other Deputies down there. The only sabotage I have committed—and I stand here before the bar of this House and I make no apology for having committed it—is that I have sabotaged a conspiracy on the part of the Minister for Transport and Power, aided and abetted by certain Deputies, to sell out Shannon Airport and the West of Ireland.

The Deputy is talking utter tripe.

Mr. O'Donnell

I will prove it. I will spell it out.

Do not get hysterical.

Mr. O'Donnell

I will show up this gentleman who refers to my integrity and questions my credibility as the guttersnipe he is.

That is what Deputy O'Donnell is.

Mr. O'Donnell

Before I do so I warn the Minister and the Government that my silence——

Acting Chairman

I am sure it was quite unintentional and not characteristic of him for Deputy O'Donnell to refer to any Minister as a guttersnipe. I would ask him to have second thoughts and to withdraw that remark.

I do not expect Deputy O'Donnell to withdraw it. It is quite in character.

Mr. O'Donnell

A scurrilous attack has been made on me. The radio was used today by Deputy Barrett and Deputy Coughlan to do the same thing. I am glad Deputy Coughlan is here now because I do not adopt his tactics of talking behind a person's back when he is not there to defend himself.

I wish the Deputy did, and was honest.

Mr. O'Donnell

I will show what the Minister has been doing over the past three or four months. Everyone in aviation circles——

Will the Deputy now repeat what he said about Deputy Coughlan in his absence?

Mr. O'Donnell

I will repeat it if the Chair allows me.

Acting Chairman

Repetition is not in order. I should like to repeat what I suggested earlier to Deputy O'Donnell.

Mr. O'Donnell

I suggest that Deputy Coughlan can go down to the Editor and see the official transcript. He has the opportunity of coming into this House which I had not got in the case of Limerick Corporation.

Acting Chairman

I would again suggest to Deputy O'Donnell that he should withdraw the reference he made to any Minister as a guttersnipe.

It is perfectly in character and I do not expect him to withdraw it.

Mr. O'Donnell

The word guttersnipe? If it is unparliamentary in your opinion, Sir, I will certainly withdraw it.

I wonder would Deputy O'Donnell refer to his remarks about Deputy Coughlan? Let us clarify this once and for all. Let Deputy O'Donnell talk about Deputy Coughlan for a minute in his presence and not in his absence.

He is afraid. He has no fire in his belly.

Deputy O'Donnell.

Mr. O'Donnell

Everyone in aviation circles——

I am not talking about everyone in aviation circles. I am talking about Deputy Coughlan. Remarks have been made here against me. I am entitled to a repetition of those remarks in order that I may justify my situation. That is all I am asking. No hedging now.

Mr. O'Donnell

A Cheann Comhairle, before you came in I was proceeding to deal with——

Will you repeat what you said about Deputy Coughlan?

Mr. O'Donnell

I am not afraid of Deputy Coughlan.

Do it now. Do not run away as you did last Sunday—— sabotaging Limerick.

Mr. O'Donnell

Why does Deputy Coughlan not take his seat on the Fianna Fáil side?

He is the greatest Judas who ever came out of Limerick.

He is the only one who broke the line.

We know his troubles. I am sorry for his troubles. They have their internal troubles and we know it.

Order. Deputy Coughlan may not interrupt the proceedings in this fashion. Deputy O'Donnell is in possession.

There was united support for Shannon apart from Deputy O'Donnell. Spread out your openers.

Mr. O'Donnell

You threw in the ball.

We will have the truth now. Get into the ring.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have referred to the Minister's attack on me in his opening statement and I have accused him of having engaged in a conspiracy, aided and abetted by Deputy Coughlan and others, to sell out the West of Ireland and Shannon Airport.

That is a confounded lie.

The Deputy must not use that expression.

The Deputy is doing harm to himself.

Deputy O'Donnell's masquerading is over.

Deputy O'Donnell should be allowed to proceed.

He is doing harm to himself.

Let him off. Limerick will handle him.

Mr. O'Donnell

You thought you could make me cower. A full page of the Minister's statement was devoted to Deputy O'Donnell.

He has to justify himself.

Mr. O'Donnell

As I said, I make no apology for having questioned the Government's handling of this whole issue of the landing rights not merely during the past month but over the past four or five months.

The Deputy pledged his support.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is a well-known fact——

The Deputy backed them everywhere we went.

Mr. O'Donnell

——that as early as last July there was a clear indication that the American Government were about to get tough about the landing rights. At the time of the controversy about the feeder service between Dublin and Shannon, everybody knew the Americans would renew their demands and increase their pressure to gain entry for US carriers at Dublin Airport. I have said before, and I repeat it, that I believe the Government misjudged the situation very seriously in late July and early August. I believe that if the Government had assessed the situation correctly, instead of a Civil Service deputation going to Washington in mid-August without a real brief, without authority even to discuss the wider issues involved, a Ministerial delegation consisting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Transport and Power should have gone to Washington.

Nonsense, and the Deputy knows it is nonsense.

Mr. O'Donnell

If a proper case had been made at top level to the American Government, if public opinion both in the US and at home had been mobilised——

The Deputy is talking utter nonsense.

It is nonsense.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister is unable to listen. Neither the Minister nor Deputy Coughlan will let me speak.

The Deputy is a combination of stupidity and irrationality.

Mr. O'Donnell

I will make my speech despite the interventions.

I am part of Limerick, not like the Deputy who is like Bozo hopping around the ring. He will not hop around as far as I am concerned.

Deputy O'Donnell is in possession. Other Deputies will have an opportunity.

What about the railway station in Limerick? There are more than airports down there.

Mr. O'Donnell

Following the return of the delegation last August, the American Government issued an ultimatum to the Irish Government in which the Irish Government were informed that as from August next unless American carriers got landing rights at Dublin Airport Aer Lingus would be banned from New York. In my opinion, the Government in their reaction to the ultimatum proved completely incompetent. Despite the efforts made by voluntary groups, despite the reaction manifest in all parts of the country against the Americans, despite the fact that many organisations spoke out on the issue, no Government Minister made a major policy speech on it. Although we have a number of Government Ministers in the mid-West, not one of them thought it worth his while to attend one of the many meetings held down there in relation to American landing rights.

On a point of order, to put the record right, the Minister received many deputations. Deputy O'Donnell was present when we came to the Minister's office and when we assured the Minister of our pledges. What more could any man do than look for our support, which he got, with the exception of Deputy O'Donnell?

Mr. O'Donnell

It will take me a long time to deliver my speech——

The Deputy will tell the truth and come out into the open.

Mr. O'Donnell

——but I will do so despite the attempts being made to stop me.

The Deputy will tell the truth.

Mr. O'Donnell

I will speak——

Forget Alderman Russell and Alderman Kennedy and the Fine Gael seat in the next election. We all know the Deputy's domestic troubles.

Mr. O'Donnell

I believe that in the manner in which they reacted to the American ultimatum and their whole approach since the ultimatum was issued, the Government have displayed an amazing lack of interest, of aggressiveness, of leadership in regard to this outrageous ultimatum by the American Government. Surely nobody was better able to mobilise public opinion here or to activate Irish public opinion in the US than a Government Minister. When he is replying I want the Minister for Transport and Power to explain why he has shown such a degree of inactivity, why the Government have displayed such an extraordinary lack of interest in the whole affair.

The Deputy knows that is not true.

The Deputy is trying to justify himself because of his domestic troubles.

Mr. O'Donnell

I spoke at considerable length on many occasions during the past ten years in relation to this issue. My views during all that period are my views now. I have been absolutely completely consistent. Furthermore, I am proud that the Fine Gael National Council at their meeting the week before last, representing 22 counties——

That is not true.

Mr. O'Donnell

The weekly Parliamentary Party meeting passed a unanimous vote——

On a point of order, Deputy O'Donnell was at a meeting last Sunday week in Cruise's Hotel in Limerick and he said in my hearing that in spite of the opposition from his own party he would go his own line on this issue. Did the Deputy say that on Sunday week?

This is not a court.

We will have the truth. The Deputy told us he would fight against the opposition from his own party.

Mr. O'Donnell

Last night at a weekly meeting of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party——

The Deputy would have closed Shannon down long ago —James Dillon and the lot of them.

Mr. O'Donnell

——the Fine Gael spokesman on transport and power was congratulated——

The Fine Gael Party were always against Shannon.

Deputy O'Donnell is entitled to speak.

When Deputy Sweetman introduced industrial grants he did a good day's work for Shannon.

We will not quote Deputy Dillon in the past.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister is very short of arguments when he starts talking about rabbits.

We are concerned about the present and the future.

The Deputy is not interested in Shannon.

I want to see honesty and unity of purpose.

Mr. O'Donnell

While my views on this matter have been consistent down the years, I am glad to say that they have been emphatically and unanimously endorsed by the Fine Gael Party. I speak for the Fine Gael Party on this matter.

That is not true.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am not pleased with the manner in which the Government have handled the American ultimatum. When I speak here, I like to be constructive. I would be prepared to answer the question "What have you done about this whole issue?" When news of the American ultimatum broke, I felt that I had a responsibility in this matter by virtue of the fact that I spoke for the main Opposition party. I carried out an independent assessment. I was not prepared to depend on the Minister or on this Government to do anything. I undertook to do a personal study, to make a full assessment and to carry out a thorough and exhaustive study of the implications of this landing rights issue. I published a detailed memorandum on the subject. I conveyed my views to the American Government through the American Ambassador and the position was——

Did you ever meet the American Ambassador? You did not.

Mr. O'Donnell

In spite of what the Minister has said, I have proof and the verdict on my action in relation to the landing rights has been unanimous——

That is not true. On a point of order, I want to correct this issue here now once and for all. In my presence on last Sunday week when we had a committee meeting for a combined effort for the preservation of Shannon, Deputy O'Donnell said, not alone in my hearing but in the presence of the committee——

Mr. O'Donnell

What relevance has the proceedings at a private meeting to this?

None. The Deputy has already made that remark. Will Deputy Coughlan please sit down and allow Deputy O'Donnell to resume his speech?

I want honesty tonight.

Deputy O'Donnell is in possession.

Mr. O'Donnell

No matter how hard Deputy Coughlan tries to prevent me from speaking, I will continue to speak.

Tell the truth and I will be happy.

Mr. O'Donnell

As I said, I undertook a detailed survey of these particular issues and published a memorandum on them. I made known the views of the Fine Gael Party and I made sure that they were known to the American Government. This, of course, inevitably strengthened the hands of the Government, but the sore point is that I was the white-haired boy with the Minister until such time as I began to get suspicious and to probe and see that, in spite of my efforts in this campaign over the past four months, the Minister was not pulling his weight on this issue. The Government were not pulling their weight on this question. I decided to question the handling of the Government in this matter. I make no apologies for doing so.

The Deputy's viewpoint counts for nothing in this matter. This is a matter between Governments.

We united and brought them together. The Deputy broke ranks. He broke our trust.

Mr. O'Donnell

The latest coalition.

You are only a chancer. The Limerick people know me better than they know you. I will put my views before them and you can talk to Senator Russell and others.

Will Deputy Coughlan please cease interrupting and allow Deputy O'Donnell to make his contribution?

Mr. O'Donnell

In the ten years I have been in the House, this is the longest time it has ever taken me to deliver a speech.

You never spoke so many untruths in your life. You are being dishonest.

Mr. O'Donnell

This is the strangest "gang-up" of all time between the Minister for Transport and Power and Deputy Coughlan.

We all pledged our support to the Minister. The Deputy did also but he broke the ranks because he thought he was going to get something out of this.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have stated my case clearly and emphatically on this issue and I make no apologies for spelling out once more clearly in this House what the issues are in this whole situation.

Tell us about the plan you know of between the Minister and the American Government.

Mr. O'Donnell

Are you finished now?

Where you are concerned with Shannon, I will never be finished until I pin you down and show what you are.

Mr. O'Donnell

If Deputy Coughlan cannot listen to me, there are two doors by which he can leave the House.

When you are misleading this House I will be here to keep you right.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister sees now the result of the insertion of pages 18 and 18a in his speech today. I am sure the country will see this also. What has the Minister achieved by the insertion of these pages?

I do not understand the Deputy's point.

Mr. O'Donnell

This is just a further step in the campaign which the Minister has carried on over the past few months.

I do not understand the Deputy.

Mr. O'Donnell

I spelled it out already and I am not going to repeat myself.

Injured innocence.

Mr. O'Donnell

I make no apology for having questioned the way the Minister was handling this issue and the way the Government were handling it. I will continue to question, and I will continue to criticise, and I will continue to approve where I consider the action taken is worthy of approval. This has been my policy always in this House. I am not going to go into any collusion with the Minister on this. I would not trust the Minister or the Fianna Fáil Government.

This is a national matter.

Why did you not say that to the deputation? You pledged the Minister your complete support.

Mr. O'Donnell

I make up my own mind in these things at all times.

The cock will crow three times and you will deny it three times.

It was one out of 12.

Mr. O'Donnell

Despite all that has been said and written about the various issues involved in this particular demand by the Americans, there is another place where I believe the Minister and the Government and certain State companies have fallen down very badly. The case put forward by the Americans was given publicity on television, radio and so forth. The American case was that entry to Dublin would generate a considerable increase in the volume of North American tourist traffic to this country. I have publicly refuted this. I have challenged the American Government to substantiate this claim but I am appalled to think, despite the expertise and the knowledge available to the Minister and to the Government, that no attempt was made to inform public opinion as to the invalidity of this American claim.

I am amused at Deputy O'Donnell challenging the Americans.

The Deputy should tell the truth.

Order. Deputy O'Donnell should be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. O'Donnell

Perhaps I could suggest that the Minister and Deputy Coughlan would go to the bar or go and have their tea.

Wherever we go we will fight for Limerick and stand up for Limerick and Shannon.

Mr. O'Donnell

The position then, as I said, is that there has been this propaganda by the Americans which succeeded to the extent that a body called the National Tourism Council fell for the bait. I do not know if the Minister is aware of this but I will refer him to a copy of a certain American tourist magazine which was circulated in the American aviation industry. This position by the National Tourism Council did untold damage. I condemn it in no uncertain terms. I have seen reports of this decision in aviation and tourist journals circulating extensively throughout the United States. The Minister's statement and mine were published in it.

This particular thesis regarding the impact of entry into Dublin on the whole volume of North American tourist traffic to Ireland that has been put forward by the Americans does not stand up to close examination. I am amazed that the National Tourist Council fell for this particular bait and that they decided to support the entry of the Americans into Dublin Airport. I have referred to this matter several times in the House over the past ten years but from the detailed examination I have made during the past three or four months I have no doubt whatsoever that the case against allowing the Americans into Dublin is so overwhelming that I am amazed the Minister, the Government and semiState bodies did not do more to expose the outrageous claims of the Americans for what they are.

I want to examine the case put forward by the Americans and I have here a copy of an official brief circulated at a briefing session in the American Embassy the other evening. When I read that and saw the flimsy claims on which the Americans were basing their case, I felt there was no great difficulty if the matter was tackled properly in answering every argument put forward.

This is not a debating society. This is power politics if the Deputy understands what this is about.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will the Minister please restrain himself? He will have the opportunity of replying to this debate and he should have the courtesy and the manners to allow me to make my speech. The Minister has the privilege of looking at every argument I put forward and of replying to the debate later.

The Deputy should tell the truth. We want the truth.

If Deputy Coughlan cannot listen, he has a remedy. Deputy O'Donnell is entitled to make his speech.

I will not listen to this balderdash.

The Deputy has a remedy. He can walk out of the House.

I will not walk out. I will stay here.

The Deputy must cease interrupting. Deputy O'Donnell is entitled to make his speech whether the Deputy agrees with it or not.

I listened to the Deputy at meetings. Let him tell us what he said in private about the Fine Gael Party and the divisions and fights they had within the party. Let him tell us what Deputy Mark Clinton thinks.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have attempted at least four times to deal with this matter but the Minister has interrupted me. I know the Minister does not regard this as serious. I do not regard it as a joke nor would I smile at it as the Minister is doing now. I regard this as a very serious issue, particularly for the people on the western seaboard. I have no doubt that the entry of even one American airline into Dublin Airport, even on a restricted basis at the outset, would be the thin end of the wedge and would ultimately lead to very serious if not disastrous repercussions for the western tourist industry.

The consequences of this for Shannon Airport are very serious, indeed, but I am particularly concerned about the consequences of American entry into Dublin in relation to the western seaboard as a whole. The consequences for the national airline have been clearly defined and are pretty obvious. What have we from a tourist point of view when we look at the west coast of Ireland as against the east coast? I want to be as objective as possible in this in the hope that the National Tourist Council and other bodies in the Dublin region, who have been so vocal in support of American entry into Dublin, would begin to analyse this situation objectively.

The entire west coast has only one entry point and that is Shannon Airport and the western tourist industry is absolutely and vitally dependent on the traffic coming through Shannon and particularly on tourists disembarking at Shannon Airport. On the east coast Dublin Airport is now the terminal for 98 per cent of all scheduled Continental and UK traffic to Ireland. The only schedule service operated by the national carrier at Shannon is London-Shannon.

The east coast has the advantage in this and also the advantage of the port of Dublin with its car ferries and shipping services. It also has the port of Dún Laoghaire with its shopping services. It has Rosslare also and on the north-east coast there is the port of Larne. The east coast then, has almost the entire tourist traffic coming from Britain and the Continent. It is widely spread and widely based but the west coast is almost entirely dependent on Shannon for tourism.

We have only one scheduled service from Britain to Shannon. There is a very good reason why there are no other services, which I can explain by referring to a situation which arose last January when a Manchester-Shannon scheduled service which had been operacting for three years and which operated in the peak tourist season three days a week had to be scrapped by Aer Lingus because it could not be made viable. I took the trouble of spending a week in Manchester to examine the reasons for the termination of this service. It is almost impossible to sell package holidays by air to Shannon in Britain because of the simple fact that you have to add £4.50 or £5 to the fare. This is the difference in the cost of travelling by air to Shannon compared with Dublin.

If I go to Birmingham tomorrow to market a fishing package holiday in the Shannon region and I have another package holiday in the Dublin region, near the east coast, I can sell the one on the east coast terminating at Dublin Airport for £5 less than the one at Shannon. Coming from Britain or the Continent it costs £5 more to travel on to Shannon. Also because we have no scheduled services—they cannot be made viable—there is another reason that makes it impossible to sell package holidays by air in the West of Ireland in Britain. It is that you must come to Dublin Airport from, say, Birmingham and wait there for two or three hours for a connecting flight to Shannon. The people coming from the British Midlands are mostly fishermen with very heavy gear and they resist having to get off at Dublin Airport and hawk their heavy gear with them while they await a connection.

I have gone to Britain for nine successive years helping to promote the Shannon region there and on every occasion we come up against this obstacle. We try to sell fishing holidays in the Shannon region by air in the great fishing market in the British Midlands and we find it almost impossible to do so because fishing centres close to Dublin Airport have an extra advantage.

I want to emphasise the vital dependence of the tourist industry along the western seaboard on Shannon Airport. The eastern region is very well served, enjoying a very favoured position from the tourism point of view because of the proximity of Dublin Airport and the seaport and the fact that across a few miles of channel, or a couple of hours distance by boat or 40 minutes, perhaps, by air, there is a mass tourist market of 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 people in Britain.

I am amazed that the National Tourist Council did not display some objectivity and, at least, show some interest in or recognition of the problems of the people of the west. If we are serious about western development, and all parties in the House are committed to that concept, if equity and justice count, the west coast is entitled to the one great asset it has, Shannon Airport. Surely it is entitled to enjoy the fact that Shannon is the gateway to very good tourist attractions in the west and south.

If the National Tourist Council reexamined their consciences on this matter and if the vocal Dublin lobby relaxed its pressure and, perhaps, if the Minister and the Government took off their coats and got down to studying this business as I have done, the answer would be clearly spelled out: it would be a gross injustice to the west of Ireland even to contemplate taking any step leading to a change in the pattern of North American tourist traffic to this country because there is no doubt, despite all the American bluff and propaganda, the entry of even one American carrier into Dublin would seriously jeopardise the tourist industry of the west. Anybody who studies the pattern of North American tourist traffic to Ireland over the last decade will realise the contribution it has made to the economy of the west and the contribution Shannon has made by being the gateway to the west.

There is another aspect of all this: the Americans claim, and in fact their whole case is based on the claim, that their entry to Dublin would substantially increase the volume of North American tourist traffic to Ireland. Has anybody seriously examined the pattern and growth of North American traffic to Ireland over the past ten years? To whom can the growth of North American traffic to this country be attributed? I defy contradiction on this: there is no doubt that it is due largely to the tremendous success of the promotional publicity and sophisticated marketing techniques of the national airline. The American airlines and the American Government, are now glibly promising us hundreds of thousands of extra tourists. Let us examine what they did on these routes in the past ten years.

By comparison let us examine what the American airlines spent and what promotional efforts they made in regard to those routes. If the American airlines are so anxious to increase the volume of North American tourist traffic to Ireland, is it not extraordinary that, despite the fact that US carriers can operate into Shannon from 14 different centres in the United States, they have never attempted to do it. They have confined themselves to operating services from Boston, New York and Chicago. Why do they not operate a service from San Francisco, from the West coast, from Philadelphia or from anywhere else. The simple answer is that they confine themselves to the three routes where not merely the national airline but Bord Fáilte and CIE have spent a fortune, where Ireland has spent a fortune, in the last decade in promotional work. Now they want to muscle in on the last internal link between Shannon and Dublin. It is muscling in on Aer Lingus and nothing else. Whether it is for prestige purposes or what, I do not know. I examined this question as carefully as I could and I cannot see any strong arguments to substantiate the American claim to entry.

No case has yet been made by the American Government nor by the American airlines to justify any change in the existing bilateral air agreement. I believe that no Government in its sane senses could even contemplate any compromise which would permit even one airline into Dublin on a restricted basis. I understand from the Minister's brief that the talks have been adjourned. On page 18 it says:

There was a full exchange of views but no agreement was reached on the matters discussed. The delegations agreed to adjourn and to report to their authorities. At this stage I do not propose to say anything further on this aspect of the matter.

It is about time the Government, the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Foreign Affairs stopped cowering before this American threat and showed some leadership, some initiative and some determination to fight this outrageous act of aggression by a major power against a small nation. Let the Government mobilise the full weight of public opinion in this country and particularly Irish public opinion in the United States. In that way the Government would be worthy of securing the support of all sides of this House in that campaign. Where there are any defects or where there are points which I think need clarification in the public interest I shall continue to call for that clarification. I will not be deterred by the tactics of the Minister here today or of other Deputies who have attacked me in this House and outside it and have attempted to prevent me from speaking in the National Parliament. Over my dead body will any Member of this House prevent me from standing up here and saying what I think is in the national interest. Despite the attempt of the Minister to question my credibility and my integrity, I am proud of the fact that last night the Parliamentary Party of Fine Gael unanimously congratulated me on my efforts in this regard. I am accountable to Deputy Liam Cosgrave and the Fine Gael Party. I am proud of the confidence placed in me and of the support I have received from my colleagues.

The people were appalled at the fact that neither the Minister for Transport and Power nor the Minister for Foreign Affairs went to Washington with the delegation. As Deputy Michael O'Leary pointed out here last week, Ministers can go to New York to take the salute at St. Patrick's Day parades; they can go down to Bally-this and Bally-that to all sorts of functions, but when the national interest demanded it, when this nation was looking to the Government to provide leadership and expected a Minister or two to be in Washington, the Minister and the Government let the country down.

Even though protocol may not permit the active participation of a Minister or Ministers in the negotiations which have taken place this week, I have no doubt that the presence of a Minister of State from Ireland in the background would lend substantial force to this delegation. The Minister or Ministers could have availed of the opportunity of lobbying Government opinion there, of mobilising public opinion, of giving interviews on radio and television and explaining to the American people what this is all about. My information from the United States is that the American people do not know what it is all about, that even the American Government are not fully aware of the situation. Perhaps they are after the last two days negotiations; I do not know. However, I think it was a fatal mistake, and maybe at this late stage, if the negotiations are going to be resumed and if they are going to take place in America, the Minister would stir himself and take the responsibility which has been placed on him in this matter.

He does not want to come home with nothing.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is the point.

There would be no Shannon at all if it were left to Fine Gael.

Did Fianna Fáil not say the Shannon scheme was a white elephant?

Did a former Fine Gael leader not say rabbits would be running over Shannon?

Take your medicine.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister, instead of coming in here and trying to bully me and prevent me from speaking, should be out in Washington fighting the American Government, but he has not the guts to do it.

Take it easy. Do not blow your top.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister started it all. The entire page that the Minister devoted to me in his brief shall be framed in my office.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy O'Donnell, please.

Less of the hysteria, please.

We will not sell the aeroplanes in any case.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am very sorry for having provoked such violent reaction from the opposite side of the House.

We like to keep the Deputy on the right track and remind him of the past.

Mr. O'Donnell

I can guess the reason for this violent reaction from Fianna Fáil.

They are incompetent.

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes, and they hate to have that incompetence exposed.

Keep up the self-praise.

Mr. O'Donnell

So far, I have dealt only with the question of landing rights and my last word on this is that in a sense I am sorry to have landed the Minister in such a mess.

It is not the first one he was landed in but he always manages to wriggle out—no problem, no crisis. There are now 100,000 fewer people at work than there were in 1948.

The Deputy should be careful now.

I do not need to be careful about anything. I say whatever I have to say.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have so much ammunition here that I would need a jumbo jet to transport all of it. I shall deal now with the tourist industry. This is yet another area in which the Minister has shown total incompetence and a complete inability to tackle the problems involved. For the past two years everything relating to tourism has been solved by "no problem". Both last year and this year have proved difficult for this industry. At this stage I wish to acknowledge that recently there have been indications from Bord Fáilte of new thinking from within the board. I am glad to say also that some of the major criticisms I have voiced during the past couple of years have been heeded and that steps have been taken to deal with these various criticisms. During that time I have referred consistently to the need for re-organisation and restructuring within Bord Fáilte and I have pointed out continuously the urgent need for strengthening their marketing section.

The Deputy is very good at speaking in the first person singular.

Mr. O'Donnell

I was fobbed off by the Minister on every occasion but major restructuring has now taken place in the marketing section of the board and there has been also a major re-organisation of staff. A new marketing manager has been appointed, new divisions have been set up, a new director-general has taken over and two new members have been added to the board. On the surface, this might appear to indicate new thinking and policy and a major change of attitude on the part of the Government towards the tourist industry. However, I regret to say that I am far from satisfied with the Government's policy in relation to tourism. They are only tinkering with this industry and whatever re-organisation has taken place within Bord Fáilte is not adequate in itself to tackle the serious problems which confront the industry at present.

During the past two years, and as recently as a couple of weeks ago, the Minister has attempted to attribute all the problems of the industry to the unfortunate situation in Northern Ireland. While I agree that the situation in the North has created problems for the industry here, I disagree entirely with the Minister when he says that they have been responsible for all the difficulties involved. There are a number of other major factors which have been having and are having serious adverse effects on the growth of Irish tourism. I shall analyse the problems, market by market taking, first of all, the British market. Undoubtedly, the difficulties in the North have created problems in so far as the British market is concerned but long before 1969 Irish tourism was showing a downward trend in so far as this particular market was concerned. It was showing a downward trend as far back as 1966 and the reasons for this are quite obvious.

First of all, in the post-war years this country enjoyed a colossal advantage in relation to tourism from Britain. People from Britain flocked here in the immediate post-war years, when there was no rationing and they could enjoy a good holiday, with plenty of food and so on. Then during most of the 1960s there was a restriction on the overseas spending allowance to £50 in Britain. This meant that the British tourist was restricted to £50 spending money. That gave him a good holiday in Ireland but it was not adequate to take him to Continental destinations. This was added to by reason of the fact that at home here we had this insidious inflationary spiral which the Government have done nothing to tackle. Prices have risen here while at the same time our competitive position in the British market was being seriously eroded, and particularly by the growth of the cheap package holidays to Continental destinations by charter aircraft, to Spain, France and other Continental areas. Price-wise we have not been able to compete with them, these holidays, nor have we made any serious effort to compete with them, nor is the Bord Fáilte marketing division equipped to deal with this highly commercial situation which has arisen in the British market.

We have had also another serious factor inhibiting the growth of tourism from Britain in the transport charges across the Irish Sea. This is something to which I have referred on many occasions. Air charges between here and Britain are now becoming absolutely outrageous. I want to warn the Minister that if the airlines get away with the further increase they are seeking in the cross-Channel routes, a situation will have been reached where the return ticket by air between Ireland and Britain will cost as much as an all-in package holiday in Spain from Britain. We are fast approaching that stage and the Minister cannot close his eyes to it. We have to face up to the realities of this situation. I believe that, despite the adverse effects of the problem in the North of Ireland on the British market, there is still tremendous scope for Irish tourism. It will require a new approach, new techniques, new strategy, new forms of publicity and advertising, but most of all it poses a very important consideration, that if we want to maintain our foothold in the British tourist market, we have to do something about air transport, particularly air transport between Britain and Ireland.

I think the time is fast approaching when our national airlines will have to look at the feasibility of setting up a charter subsidiary. This should be seriously considered, particularly in view of the fact that we cannot dispose of the Viscount aircraft on which grass is growing out in Dublin Airport. BEA has participation in subsidiary charter companies and the Minister will have to look into this matter, because price-wise we have not got an earthly hope.

It has become so bad now that our own Irish people are finding it impossible— they cannot afford it—to come home at least once a year as they have always done.

This problem of transport charges must be tackled and I believe that there is a cast iron case for the introduction of duty-free facilities on the Irish Sea. I have no doubt whatsoever that the introduction of such facilities across the Irish Sea would be a tremendous inducement to travel and would help to counteract the high transport charges on the Irish Sea. I have raised this matter before and I would like to know what the Minister has decided to do about it. What discussions have been held? Rumour has it that the Irish Government have approached the British Government in relation to duty-free facilities and that the British Government are not in favour of it. What is the problem? If we can overcome this problem and get our packages down to a competitive level, we can sell them on the British market. We can sell special interest holidays like angling and other activities, particularly in the mass market in the British midlands where fishing is the main activity and hobby of the people. We can definitely do this if we get our transport charges down, but looking at it at this stage, it appears to me that the Government, Bord Fáilte and the airline in particular will have to look at this question of charter across the Irish Sea.

There is another aspect of this whole question and Deputy Barrett will be particularly interested in this because I am going to quote the Bishop of Killaloe, the Most Reverend Dr. Harty. I have said in relation to the British tourist market that new techniques, new methods and new marketing strategy will have to be devised. I am appalled at a document I have received, a document which has recently been published by Bord Fáilte and which is about to circulate amongst tourist interests. I produced a similar document on the Supplementary Estimate last March. I have said on numerous occasions that we need new approaches and new strategy in Britain. I have criticised Bord Fáilte for the fact that their whole marketing policy was wrongly orientated, that it was aimed at a top class, better off British tourist. I held up here last year the advertising schedule in Britain of Bord Fáilte for last year and I pointed out that there was overemphasis on the top-class journals such as The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph, and I said that there was a need to tackle particularly the ethnic and the ordinary market in Britain, and I suggested that in future their advertising budget should be rescheduled.

I particularly asked the Minister last March to bear in mind the possibilities of the ethnic market in Britain and I suggested that Bord Fáilte should do a substantial amount of advertising in the Irish Post, a newspaper circulating every week amongst the Irish people in Britain. The editor, if I remember rightly, comes from Deputy Taylor's constituency. I have here the advertising schedule of Bord Fáilte for 1972 in Britain and what do I find—The Sunday Times colour magazine, four half-page colour and two half-page colour BW, The Observer colour magazine. This is the order of priority of Bord Fáilte advertising: Daily Telegraph, TV Times, Sunday Express, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Observer, The Universe, The Catholic Herald, Drive magazine and The Irish Post. Down near the end is The Irish Post—two half-page and a second ten inch triple column. That is the sum total of the advertising budget allocated by Bord Fáilte to the vast four million ethnic market in Britain.

I challenged the Minister on this last March—he can check the record of that debate on the Supplementary Estimate—and I pointed out that the greatest potential market in Britain was among our own Irish people. I pointed out that there were one million Irish-born people in Britain and over three million of Irish heritage and that nobody could be more easily attracted to come home to Ireland than our own people and that for the last decade, in their concern with and overemphasis on the top managing director bracket in Britain, Bord Fáilte ignored completely this mass market, that the airline fleeced them with their high fares and that no attempt was made to devise or design a holiday package for Irish exiles. I thought a big change of heart had come about. I have got handouts from Bord Fáilte. I have met the new marketing director and the publicity manager. I was in Britain a few weeks ago and met Mr. Terry Sheehy. I was assured that Bord Fáilte would now pay special attention to the ethnic market.

I find in their whole advertising schedule for 1972 two half pages. Surely the Minister will agree with me that we should now more than ever before aim at bringing home on holiday or encouraging as many of our own Irish people as possible to come home on holiday. What is the Minister doing about it? What are the Government going to do about it? There are two things necessary. I am as familiar with Irish organisations in Britain as any Member of this House and I believe that they feel sore about the fact that they have been neglected by Bord Fáilte, that no effort was made by the Government to devise cheap holidays for them at home or to give them special travel concessions. The Bishop of Killaloe, Dr. Harty, when he addressed the Claremen's Association in London, said:

The time has come to ask Bord Fáilte and Aer Lingus to devise ways and means of facilitating cheaper air travel for our returning emigrants.

He went on to make a case similar to that which I have made in this House. The Minister did not agree with me last March. He said that the policy of Bord Fáilte was to aim at the non-Irish person. He admitted it here in the House. It is on the record.

Mr. O'Donnell

He did. If he checks the record he will see. Surely the million Irish-born people plus the three million people of Irish parentage over there are the best potential tourist market we have.

Of course they are.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister has not recognised this. Bord Fáilte say they are doing so now. Why is it that there are only two half pages in The Irish Post?

I will explain that patiently to the Deputy when I am replying. The Deputy does not understand everything. Would the Deputy tone down and not get excited?

Mr. O'Donnell

This is the schedule for 1972. All publications on which Bord Fáilte advertisements will appear are listed on this. The main criticism made by Irish people in Britain is that no effort has been made to devise a special family package holiday for Irish people. They are very sore, and justifiably so, about the fact that they have to pay exorbitant transport charges, that the package deals and the travel concessions available to ordinary tourists are not available to an Irish family coming home because they stay with their families and friends rather than in hotels or guesthouses. I have put this to the marketing manager of Bord Fáilte, I put it to Mr. Terry Sheehy in London a few weeks ago and I am putting it to the Minister now that two things must be done if we are to get any substantial flow of traffic from Britain during the coming year. We must devise a special package holiday for Irish people coming home on their annual holidays. I guarantee the Minister that if this is done the best salesmen for Irish tourism in Britain—this is where Bord Fáilte and the Government have been all wrong in recent years—are the Irish persons living in Britain.

A year ago I was in London at a reunion which the people of my own parish hold there each year. I was talking to the chairman of that organisation and I said to him: "You could do a lot to help the flow of tourist traffic to Ireland." He worked with a large international company. He said: "I could. There are English families in my neighbourhood and my mates are English." I said: "Did you ever try to encourage them to come to Ireland?" He said: "Why would I do that when Bord Fáilte do not give a damn about me and when the airlines are robbing me?" I said to him: "I believe Bord Fáilte and the Government are going to do something about this now," and he said: "I will try it as an experiment."

That ordinary working man was responsible this year for bringing 20 British friends to Ireland and they spent a fortnight here. Surely if a fair deal were given, particularly to our 1,000,000 Irish-born people there, they in return would sell Ireland to the second and third generation Irish. I am disgusted by the same old approach. As I said before, the policy of Bord Fáilte in Britain during the past decade has been that they would prefer to see one managing director of a major company in the Midlands coming to Ireland on a holiday than 500 workers from the factory floor. The Minister has a serious job before him in relation to Britain. I recommend that all the resources at his disposal should be thrown into the question of introducing a fair deal for Irish people. As Dr. Harty said, and I quote from The Clare Champion:

The money spent by Irish exiles in their own villages and hamlets and rural areas is making as good a contribution to the economy of this country as that of the tourists from foreign parts. The great advantage is that the Irish person is coming back to his own town. He may not be staying in a hotel or guesthouse but he will be spending money and the money he spends makes a very important contribution to the local economy.

If the Minister does not reply until next week I would ask him to check on this with Bord Fáilte. I feel very badly about it. I feel that I have been led up the garden path. I went so far three weeks ago, when I was in Britain, as to invite Mr. Terry Sheehy to come to this reunion which we have had now for ten years of 500 people from Bruff and the surrounding districts. The Bishop of Limerick was there. Mr. Sheehy came along. We had a long discussion and he told me that Bord Fáilte were going to tackle the ethnic market with new schemes and new plans. I pointed out to him particularly the importance of advertising in those journals circulating among the emigrants.

In this particular field, the direct contact promotion is felt to be better than the advertising type of promotion. It is being tackled with the various Irish clubs and associations.

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not agree, because in the first place who will make the contact with the Irish organisations?

We will not conduct the debate on this basis.

Mr. O'Donnell

Who will do it? There are only four offices in Britain and there has been an important sales post vacant for the past 18 months. There was one Irish officer in Britain who was taken off this work and sent up to Glasgow as manager of the office there. As far as I know there is no ethnic officer there at the moment.

This is changing. I have more information about this.

Mr. O'Donnell

Who will make the contact? Surely the way is through the news media which are read by the Irish people over there? This is the way to do it.

I agree with the Deputy that the right way to tackle it is through the Irish ethnic market in Britain.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister need not talk to me about the Irish ethnic market in Britain. I am not going to listen to him because neither he nor Bord Fáilte nor the airlines gave two tupenny damns about it for the last ten years. I thought there was a change of heart. I will take it up again with Bord Fáilte. I even went so far as to make a special appeal to the emigrants when I was in Britain some time ago to do all they could to encourage their friends to spend a holiday in Ireland. That appeal was published in the papers. Bord Fáilte helped me in compiling it. I had to co-operate with them to the best of my ability in encouraging Irish people to come home.

Looking through the Estimate, and particularly the Supplementary Estimate, I am not satisfied at all about the amount of money made available for marketing. Last year we had a rather extraordinary situation where the Minister made £395,000 available for marketing purposes. It transpired that £200,000 of this was taken out of another fund, the loans fund, of Bord Fáilte and £195,000 has to come out of this particular Estimate. What is the position in regard to the marketing subvention? My analysis is that the amount of money that will be available to Bord Fáilte in respect of the current year for marketing purposes will be less than it was last year and less than it was the year before.

That is not true. I will explain it fully.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will the Minister spell out the figures in real terms?

It is more.

Mr. O'Donnell

In the light of the problems we have had to contend with in tourism, does the Minister consider that the marketing subvention is adequate?

The various tourist interests sought £300,000 and we have allocated £250,000. I met all the various tourist interests in the middle of summer. They sought an additional grant of £300,000. We have allocated £250,000. That is the situation.

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not agree with the Minister on this either.

That is what they submitted.

Mr. O'Donnell

The amount available, for example, for promotion work in Britain and on the Continent is grossly inadequate. One way in which we can help to overcome our difficulties is by good publicity, good promotional work, good advertising, and so forth, and this all costs money. If the Irish tourist industry is to survive and if the Government are serious about enabling the industry to overcome its difficulties, it will have to be given adequate financial assistance.

Another major criticism that I made during this year was in respect of the publication of the hotel guide. This was brought to my notice by my colleague, Deputy Belton, who showed me a letter he received on the 1st February of this year from a travel agent friend of his, pointing out that the 1971 Bord Fáilte Guide was not available in the first week of February.

That is correct.

I agree. That is being remedied. It will not happen again.

Mr. O'Donnell

I raised this matter in the Dáil at Question Time. The Minister investigated it and it was confirmed that I was correct.

The Deputy was correct. It is right to acknowledge that. It will not happen again.

Mr. O'Donnell

This was an indefensible situation.

I can assure the Deputy that it will not happen again.

It should never have happened.

Mr. O'Donnell

That guide is the most important asset that any travel agency or anybody selling tourism can have and it should be in the hands of every travel agent not later than 1st September. It did not reach them until the marketing season was over, on February 1st.

That is correct. That will be remedied.

Mr. O'Donnell

I could not say in Parliament what I think of the 1971 guide, when I compare it with the 1970 guide. I had numerous complaints— and people in information offices of Bord Fáilte will confirm this—about this botched up job that was done for 1971. Perhaps it was because of the fact that there were delays that they botched it up. It is totally inadequate.

Mr. O'Donnell

I would be ashamed to be in Britain trying to sell Ireland on the basis of that guide.

The Deputy can be assured that the one for 1972 will be a very great improvement.

Is it out at the moment?

Practically out.

It is not out and it should be out. The Minister said two minutes ago that what happened in the case of the 1971 guide will not happen again this year. It should be out by now.

It will not happen again. It will be out very shortly. I will have information on that also for the Deputy when I am replying.

Mr. O'Donnell

There is another Bord Fáilte publication, a list of official tourist information offices and room reservation services, which is a very important asset to tourists and which certainly should be in the information offices when they open in May, but which did not reach the information offices until August of this year. Could the Minister tell me why?

I will inquire.

Mr. O'Donnell

This is not the guide. It is a different publication.

I know exactly what the Deputy is talking about.

Mr. O'Donnell

It reached the tourist offices in August of this year when the tourist season was over. Tourists were calling to the information offices all over the country and could not get it.

I will check on that.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister referred to consultants having being called in to examine Bord Fáilte. I should like to know how many consultants were called in, who they were, what they did, what they cost. As far as I can see, for the last year or two, foreign consultants have been running the Department of Transport and Power. There was the report that all the controversy was about in the papers. By a good bit of journalistic strategy, some journalist laid hold of the report into the marketing angle of Bord Fáilte and it was splashed in the papers. Why was that report not made available? Was it not public funds that went into employing these consultants? Surely we are entitled to know what they said?

In regard to the new reorganisation that took place within Bord Fáilte, I should like to ask the Minister why were not the staff notified or consulted before this scheme went into operation? Why did no staff consultation take place? What is the position now? What effect has this had on the morale of the staff of Bord Fáilte? Perhaps the Minister would look into this matter, because it is important.

It is my view that, despite the difficulties we have experienced in the tourist industry, the future is bright provided the Government, in particular, face up to the problems, provided that new techniques and new policies are introduced to meet the challenge.

There is a second point that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister. I have been drawing his attention to the ethnic market in Britain for I do not know how long.

There is a totally unsatisfactory situation in regard to the relationship between the State bodies involved in tourism. Senator Ruairí Brugha referred to this last week in his excellent speech at the annual general meeting of whatever tourist body he is involved in. Not merely have we got Bord Fáilte, but we have Aer Lingus, CIE, SFADCO and several others. These organisations, instead of co-operating with one another, instead of co-ordinating their policies, instead of assisting private enterprise, are engaged in open cut-throat competition with one another.

I saw evidence of that this summer and I received evidence of it from the United States. There have been several complaints of these State companies literally sticking knives in each other's backs. This is a very serious situation. It is one the Minister has failed to tackle and unless he does so there will be very serious trouble. I saw this in Manchester last year. There, you had Bord Fáilte, Aer Lingus, the B & I, and SFADCO all operating within one small area and all competing with one another for business. The B & I are based in Liverpool and surely SFADCO should not be there competing with them. In Sheffield, 30 miles away, no State company have any offices or representatives. This is a serious matter. I emphasise it again knowing the growing dissatisfaction in the private sector of the industry because of the carry-on of some of these State companies. It should be possible for the Minister to bring these together and arrive at some formula clearly defining the functions of each State body.

That has been done.

Mr. O'Donnell

There is no evidence of it yet. I shall look with interest for evidence of it from now on. I will be going to Britain and I shall watch to see how it is operating. It was a very serious obstacle and I am glad Senator Ruairí Brugha referred to it because I have been talking about this for the past two years and people thought I was talking through my hat but, as on most other subjects on which I speak here, I researched facts before I commented.

The main purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is to tide CIE over its present difficulties pending the outcome of the investigation into CIE following on the McKinsey report. The Minister promised some weeks ago that, when the Government had considered McKinsey, there would be a full-scale debate here on the future role of CIE.

Of course. I have said that in reply to a Parliamentary question.

The Government are like Santa Claus to McKinsey.

The Deputy should behave on a proper level.

On a proper level? Shovelling money out. It is disgraceful.

Deputy O'Donnell is keeping on a proper level now.

The Minister never kept anything on a proper level.

Mr. O'Donnell

Since there will be a full-scale debate, and since we had a debate this time last year on CIE, I do not propose to go into a detailed analysis of the situation or give my views on the McKinsey report. I have studied it fairly thoroughly. I have always emphasised the vital importance of the Government formulating and implementing a national transport policy. I have called repeatedly for this in the past two years. I have pointed out that it is a matter of great urgency because of the important role transport will play in the European Economic Community.

In the past 12 months we have had seven different pieces of transport legislation and I have criticised the Government for introducing a continuous series of unco-ordinated haphazard transport legislation. As well as examining the McKinsey report, I trust the Government will examine the whole situation in regard to transport and that we will have a White Paper setting forth the Government's views on transport. It would be fatal to legislate for the future of CIE by considering the railway in isolation or CIE itself in isolation. A national transport policy has a very important part to play and the Government will have to take steps to formulate a policy which will ensure the optimum utilisation of all our transport resources. This is vital because of the way in which the Common Market transport policy is evolving. I dealt with this earlier in the year in the debate on the Common Market.

McKinsey has given rise to a great deal of talk. Some weeks ago here I said the McKinsey report, in my personal opinion, was the greatest wastage of public funds in the history of this State. I have since studied the report because some people said I was premature in my judgement. I have discussed the report with transport employees—sound men who have spent 20 or 30 years operating in various parts of the CIE network— and I have no hesitation in saying that this document, which cost £60,000 to compile and which costs £3 to buy, contributes nothing original to our knowledge of the role of public transport in the life of the nation. One of the major recommendations—I am amused at the way this is being held out in certain quarters as a totally new concept—was that the social service aspect of transport should be separated from the purely commercial aspect.

The commercial sector should be made pay for itself but the Government should subvent economic transport services in those areas where such services could be justified on social grounds. In December, 1969, we had the 1969 Transport Bill and during that debate almost identical views were expressed by me in relation to the social needs of public transport. I pointed out the need for normalising the accounting system in CIE. Deputy Childers was standing in for the present Minister, who was indisposed at the time, and he pointed out that this could not be done. I was very interested to learn that the normalisation of accounts simply meant that the balance sheet would show the commercial returns from the commercial sector of CIE as distinct from the returns from those services which are uneconomic but which are justified on social grounds—in other words the demand sector would be separated from the need sector. This is the whole basis of McKinsey. I do not know whether or not the Minister knows— I would not be a bit surprised if he does not—that there is an excellent research branch in CIE.

I know all about it.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is headed by a man called Dr. Noel Whelan. If I wanted to carry out research into transport tomorrow morning I would back Dr. Noel Whelan against the might of McKinsey because there is nothing in McKinsey that Whelan has not said already. I find myself on this particular occasion of the annual Estimate having to defend myself more than usual and project myself as being the greatest. I want to show the Minister where the £60,000 paid to McKinsey has gone. In the journal called Forum—I presume the Minister knows about this journal?

I happen to get every issue.

Mr. O'Donnell

In the February, 1971, issue of Forum Dr. Noel Whelan, Ph.D, Assistant General Manager, Research and Development of CIE, wrote an article defining the role of the railways. I have never met Dr. Whelan but I have read a great deal of what he has written. I have compared some of his work with transport publications from Britain and the EEC countries and I have the highest admiration for his ability. The basic recommendations, concepts and ideas behind Dr. Whelan's article are the same as McKinsey's.

I know; I read the article.

Mr. O'Donnell

McKinsey talks about the social obligations of a public transport system. The fact that this House is prepared to provide a subvention for CIE because it is providing transport services justified by community needs which cannot be made economically viable is proof that we recognise the social obligations of public transport.

Another section of McKinsey is taken up with the question of public transport and the role of CIE in relation to our entry to the EEC. If we become members of the EEC we shall have to accept the Common Market transport policy. The role of the railways in the EEC has already been worked out. Members will be allowed to operate uneconomic services on the railways provided they can be justified by community needs. Deputy Taylor will be interested to know that they can also be justified for regional development needs. I made an impassioned plea earlier this evening for the preservation of the west of Ireland. I believe there is a cast iron case for subsidising transport between Dublin and the west in order to encourage the establishment of industry there and this would be permissible within the context of the EEC policy.

I cannot figure out why the Government decided to bring in McKinsey. Everything I can do to find fault with McKinsey I will do in order to try to stop the wholesale importation of foreign consultants to examine every sector of our nationalised industries. Of course, if we had a good Government and Ministers who were on the ball and doing their jobs properly, there would be no need to bring in foreign consultants. This habit of importing foreign consultants to solve every problem is arousing grave concern throughout the country and has been the subject of a considerable amount of criticism, fully justified, in my opinion. Surely we have consultants with the education, training and in many cases experience gained abroad who are as good as or even better than McKinsey or any of these other foreign consultants? This is casting a very bad reflection on the type of Government we have.

When the Government have fully examined the future role of CIE and the future role of the railways I hope they will look at the whole sphere of public transport. How can any Deputy make a constructive speech on the activities of ten or 11 State-sponsored bodies to which the Minister has allotted 43 pages of script, minus the famous page 18a? I would like the Government to introduce a comprehensive White Paper on the whole field of transport.

The Deputy is full of paper.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would the Minister please restrain himself? I am getting annoyed with this continuous damn interference which the Minister has been at for the last couple of hours. It is a bloody disgrace.

Mr. O'Donnell

When I am trying to talk seriously about a national issue the Minister laughs and scoffs. I have been on my feet for the last few hours trying to make a constructive contribution to this debate, as I always do.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the Minister had done that earlier on tonight and if he had not carried up this document today and added in page 18a there would be none of this. The behaviour of the Minister for Transport and Power is despicable. He is behaving in the most irresponsible fashion. He is laughing, scoffing, interrupting and doing everything possible to prevent me from making my speech. Under no circumstances will I be provoked into infringing the courtesies I have always extended to the Chair and to this House. I am glad I did not do so earlier during the storm of barracking that I got. However, if this is going to be the Minister's attitude, on every occasion from now on so far as I can do so within the rules of this House, I will make the Minister's seat a hot seat for him. I will question every item that needs questioning in his Department. The Minister is only a buff.

The Deputy must withdraw that remark.

Mr. O'Donnell

I withdraw it, Sir, but I was strongly provoked.

I thank the Deputy.

As has been mentioned already, this Estimate covers a very wide field of activity. What is of interest to the people I represent is the section dealing with Shannon Airport. I wonder if people in other parts of the country appreciate the fears that exist in western and southern counties about the threat posed by the American Government with regard to Shannon Airport?

The airport is the hub of all activity in our region and it affects many other counties also. It employs 1,000 people in the sales and catering services, with an annual wage bill of £1 million. In addition, a further £1 million is spent locally on food, merchandise, hotels and other services. This will give some idea of the enormous problem that exists at the moment. Aer Rianta employ a considerable number of people and the airport has been developed as our transatlantic airport. As a result of the development that has taken place in the airport, 8,000 people are employed. One can appreciate the fears expressed by the people and they believe that if the concessions which the Americans seek are granted it will be the beginning of the end for the airport.

We know what led up to this situation. It is due to the determination shown by our Government in the last ten years, and particularly in the last two years when the pressure was put on at Government level. Because of the determination shown by our Government, the American Government have issued an ultimatum that they will withdraw all rights from Aer Lingus to fly in and out of New York airport. The result of this would mean bankruptcy for our airline.

The ultimatum issued by the Americans has come as a surprise. We have always looked on the United States as a friendly nation; they gave us to understand we were one of their favourite small nations because of the many Irish people who have emigrated to their country during the years. In recent years two American Presidents visited Ireland and last year President Nixon went to a lot of trouble to trace his Irish ancestors. The ultimatum can only be described as the act of a bullyboy using the big stick against a smaller person. In my opinion the Americans have treated us as they would treat North Vietnam or some other declared enemy.

As a result of the ultimatum there was a great rallying to the cause in the area. The Shannon Action Committee, the tourist organisations, urban councils and county councils got together and declared that this was a national crisis. The groups in the area have shown a united front. The Deputies and Senators from the area came to the Minister for Transport and Power and he informed us of the position. He made it clear that it was not a bluff by the Americans but that it was a real issue. At some stage it became known that the decision taken by the Americans was made at Presidential level, proof in itself that the Americans meant business. It was obvious we were not going to get away easily in negotiations which had to take place.

The first people hit by the ultimatum were Aer Lingus. They found that their advance bookings for the period after 18th August, 1972, were in jeopardy. Travel agents in America told them there was no point in booking with them when they could not guarantee that they could fly passengers out of New York. This made negotiations more urgent. We know now that our negotiators had no option but to pack their bags and come home. I do not know what happened but I presume there was no progress to report. The Americans maintained their position as we have done. I congratulate the Government on the stand they have taken during the years and particularly in the last two years. The people in my constituency and in the west of Ireland expect the Government to continue to stand firm despite what is involved. Eventually there may be an agreement signed that will not imperil the airport.

My suggestion is that we make Shannon Airport the transatlantic terminal for all airlines, including Aer Lingus. This would nullify immediately the American claim that they are not getting a fair deal in not being permitted to fly into Dublin. They could not expect to negotiate a better position here than that enjoyed by our national airline. This would have complications for Aer Lingus but these could be overcome. There is no reason why a small type aircraft could not be acquired to run a shuttle service for all the airlines between Shannon and Dublin. At the moment Aer Lingus are using their jumbo jets for this shuttle service and I understand that from the financial point of view this service is not economic. It has been mentioned that there is a loss of about £250 on each flight. The initial cost would be the greatest cost. We would have to acquire the necessary small aircraft to run a proper shuttle service. I agree that disruption would be involved for some Aer Lingus personnel but when we talk about decentralisation, would it not be far more realistic to change from one aircraft to another rather than to send a Government Department down to some town in the west?

Some of the people who would be required to move to our region might not wish to do so, but there could be an interchange of personnel between other State bodies. Some people who are already working in other State bodies could change to Aer Lingus. I have had quite a few requests from people working in other State Departments and bodies in Dublin for a transfer to the Limerick/Shannon area, so that difficulty could be overcome.

Some cost would also be involved in providing the necessary servicing facilities but this would not be very great as far as the transatlantic planes are concerned. We have not got servicing facilities for jumbo jets in Dublin Airport. I understand that they are serviced in London. We would have to build this servicing unit in Dublin in any event so why not build it in Shannon? This would surely completely eliminate the American complaint. I would ask the Minister and the Government to give serious consideration to this and to take some steps towards having it implemented. It would put an end to this headache we have every year with the American airlines trying to overfly Shannon and fly directly into Dublin.

The people expect the Government to stand steady on this issue. They are united behind them. All the people with whom I have been in contact are fully behind the Government— religious and others. They have stated this publicly. I trust that this is the stand that will be taken. The Americans have made projections about bringing in more tourists if they are allowed to fly directly into Dublin but those projections do not stand up to close examination. People to whom I have spoken about them are not impressed by them. People who are already in the airline business are not convinced by them. We should not fall for that gimmick.

According to their own statistics, the American companies who fly into the capitals of countries claim that each tourist spends 3.8 days in the capital city. Our present figure is that each tourist who stops off at Shannon spends 10.7 days in the country, not excluding Dublin. Therefore, for these companies to fly into the capital would not help the overall tourist position. According to the Americans, the tourists would stay for a very much shorter time. I presume Dublin has not got any greater attraction than cities like Rome and Paris, so we must assume that the figure of 3.8 days would apply to us as well. We could also lose there.

As I have pointed out, in my opinion to cure this ill we must embark on decentralisation and we must make Shannon the terminal for all transatlantic aircraft flying the North Atlantic route, including Aer Lingus. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind and explore it to the fullest extent. I am sure that the people who would be disrupted would not mind too much if they had to come and live in our area. They would find it very pleasant. Any of the people I met down in Shannon who were transferred from Dublin and other places are very pleased to be living there. We have workers from all over the country, from the North of Ireland and from every county in Ireland, I would say. They do not find anything wrong with the area. They are quite pleased with their surroundings and they make no secret of that fact. I exhort the Government to be as determined about this as they have been up to now and to maintain the status quo in Shannon Airport which is vital to the economy of the west in the opinion of everybody in the west. It is the generating point for all tourism in the west.

It is very natural that the question of landing rights and the overflying of Shannon should overshadow many of the other items included in the Vote for the Department of Transport and Power. Statements were made in the House this evening and it is necessary for me, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, to make our attitude quite clear. Some misunderstanding arose during the course of the debate and it was implied that there were divergent voices within this party. That is not correct.

Let us put this matter in perspective. As a party we were unanimous in supporting the Government's attitude towards preventing the overflying of Shannon. It was decided on the direction of our leader, Deputy Cosgrave, that a memorandum should be prepared and Deputy O'Donnell, the shadow Minister for Transport and Power, was given the task of preparing that memorandum, which, to my mind, is the best I have seen, and many have been prepared and published.

I want to make it quite clear once and for all that as a party we are speaking with one voice in supporting the Government and the Minister. It is totally wrong for anyone to imply that at one time anyone in his party has spoken against the Government's stand. I think it is agreed that we have spoken with one voice. Politics have never influenced us in the western region. I am a member of the Regional Development Board in the Limerick/Shannon/ Tipperary area. I think we were the first board to uphold the Minister's decision and the attitude of the Government on the question of overflying Shannon. The regional tourism organisation of the Shannonside as a group and all interests involved united in support of the Government. On my introducing a motion, Clare County Council decided to circularise all public bodies on the west and south coast. It is wrong for anyone to indicate that there are divergent voices. I should like to clear that up.

Hear, hear. Thank you.

It is necessary for all of us to express our views very clearly and very firmly now that the negotiations are not completed. I would prefer to say they are suspended. There may be more discussions at a higher level to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. There should never be any thought of disunity in this country. For too long that has impeded development. The Minister is an affable and approachable man. In my few years in the House I have had experience of the courtesy with which he receives the Deputies—and that is also quite true of all his staff. I was really amazed that he should make reference here to a particular Deputy, but possibly he considered it necessary because of newspaper reports and because of statements made that the Government had already made some bargain. I do not accept that any bargain was made.

I thank the Deputy. That is very gracious and I appreciate it very much. That is the truth.

I should be very disappointed if any responsible Government or any responsible Minister could even think of taking action without having full consultation with Parliament on an issue which affects the livelihood of many people and the economy of the State. Possibly Deputy O'Donnell was stating what he had heard from quite a few people. I myself heard this rumour from different sources. I am not clear where it originated, but it was floating around, and as time went on it was accepted as a fact, which of course was wrong. Now that the little storm has blown over I think we can step forward together again.

This overflying of Shannon has been discussed time and time again, and it is not for me to go over the ground again which our negotiators, the civil servants, have been travelling on behalf of the Government. However, the economy of a region depends entirely on the success of the talks which will take place shortly. The development at Shannon has brought prosperity to that area, particularly to Clare, over a number of years, and it is vital that nothing should happen that would lead to the collapse of the economy of that area. I do not think that will happen.

While both Aer Lingus and Bord Fáilte are both very interested in increasing the potential in tourism, they may overlook some areas. I remember when an Total was being promoted, somebody referred to it as something being promoted during the monsoon period, when golf clubs from England were encouraged to come here. It was not a very successful venture. Would it not be possible to encourage our emigrants to return home by air by giving them a reduction in their fares. The fact that they are not staying in hotels seems to be the excuse for not granting them this concession. I do not think that is a reasonable attitude, and I would ask the Minister to see to it that Aer Lingus and Bord Fáilte afford special travel facilities to our emigrants at Christmas time or during the summer holiday period.

I was very pleased to find it has been decided to give an injection of a few million pounds to CIE for the railways. CIE should be considered from a socio-economic point of view because of the employment given. The railways in some counties are threatened with closure. We have experienced that in Clare, where over three-quarters the length of the county is without a rail service. Our roads are deteriorating and it is practically impossible to keep them up to the standard which is necessary for heavy traffic. Development of the railways would ease this problem.

I was wondering would CIE consider having bus shelters erected particularly in places from which workers go to factories in the morning and return late at night. Some protection should be given to the travelling public and an allocation should be made every year so that gradually this amenity could be made available at various bus stops.

With regard to the development of supplementary holiday accommodation, I note that the western counties got £100,000 last year but that the sum has not been increased this year. Bord Fáilte should do some new thinking on the promotion of holidays. Our experience in the past few years would seem to indicate that we have over-emphasised the necessity for developing Grade A hotels. The fact that they have not been filled would lead us to believe that the policy has not been as successful as we had hoped. Therefore, I would suggest that some plan should now be considered which would allow guesthouses and farmhouses to benefit from the money allocated to tourism. British tourists in particular favour guesthouses and farm holidays. We should provide such amenities.

SFADCO can be termed a semi-State body. They receive a subvention from the Department of Transport and Power. They are doing a wonderful job. They deserve any praise they get. They have shown how progress in industrialisation can be achieved. For some reason best known to the Minister, the Government and SFADCO the industrialisation has not extended to the western coastal regions of Clare and Limerick. I am particularly interested in the West Clare coast where people are displeased about the rate of industrial progress. An industrialist came and selected a site for a small factory in this area. Somehow the area was victimised and the foundation of an industry there was deferred. There seemed to be a penalty on the man who considered the area worth developing.

If something effective is to be done about saving the west the Minister should do something about it before it is too late. He should correct the imbalance which has been shown up in the census figures where there was a decrease of 1,000 people between one census and another. The policies used to save the west have been wrong and should be changed immediately. I am asking the Minister to correct the obvious and harmful imbalance which exists.

It is encouraging to find that electricity consumption has increased by 10 per cent. This indicates the progressiveness of the ESB and seems to justify the confidence which the promoters of the board had when the former Deputy Paddy McGilligan authorised the building of the first electric power station at Ardnacrusha. This scheme was described then as a white elephant. We are pleased to see that progress has been maintained there all down the years.

I would like to have some indication of the sums originally intended for the development of the resort at Kilkee. A few years ago large-scale development was envisaged there. One stage of this development was completed. It is necessary to protect coastal towns from erosion by the sea and such work should be done before serious damage occurs and repairs prove expensive.

A big hotel in Kilkee was closed during the last tourist season. I am not familiar with the costings or with the details of the State subsidy given to the hotel. Anyone who gets a substantial grant has an obligation to provide a service to the tourists of the area. I ask the Minister for Transport and Power to investigate what has happened and to decide on the course of action necessary in order to have this particular hotel in Kilkee opened for the coming tourist season.

The importance of Irish Shipping Limited to our agricultural industry is often overlooked. Our cattle trade depends on having a really efficient shipping company. The submissions of the livestock exporters' associations in regard to cattle exports should be attended to promptly and freight rates should be adjusted. These matters react on the cattle trade and on the prices which farmers get for their stock. British Rail should have suitable wagons available for the transport of the cattle to their final destinations.

I hope that the good relationship which I have experienced over the past few years with the Department of Transport and Power, the Minister and his officials will continue. There is just one other small point in connection with the festivals in our small towns. It has been suggested that entertainment should be provided in areas which are considered tourist areas. In every small village and town in Clare the local people have provided that type of entertainment.

The festival committees who provided that entertainment did not get adequate grants to encourage them to developthis activity from the bodies administering those grants. Some people seem to have a gloomy view of tourist prospects for 1972. I do not share it but I think that if in the years ahead more generous grants were given it would be a direct injection into the tourism arm which would ensure that tourists would see Irish entertainment in the form of music, song and dance as they would like to see it.

I should like to deal with one matter mentioned in the Minister's speech and peculiarly annotated on page 18 (a) of his brief. It was, I suppose, a rather belated insertion by the Minister on another stencil—or at his behest, I presume— in relation to recent developments affecting the negotiations between the Irish Government and the US negotiators in Washington. I think it is important to repeat what the Minister said. He described the recent views of Deputy, O'Donnell as mischievous and irresponsible, as sabotaging the national interest, as being clouded by a party political attitude. He used the phrase, whatever it means, that Deputy O'Donnell "broke the line"——

An unwritten agreement.

——and that he was the only person who did so. He suggested that Deputy O'Donnell was undermining the Government's stand and indicated that the Deputy was injuring his own reputation as a credible political figure. Finally, the Minister indulged in the usual rhetoric about the Fianna Fáil Government negotiating on behalf of Ireland; that it had got its priorities right; that Shannon was started by Fianna Fáil and would always be cherished by Fianna Fáil. We can excuse this party political rhetoric but I think nobody on this side of the House can excuse the Minister's deliberate insertion into his speech of an entirely unwarranted and scurrilous attack on a Deputy in such a manner.

Was the Deputy here for Deputy Coughlan's attack on Deputy O'Donnell? Deputy Coughlan is a member of the Deputy's party.

I am entitled to make my contribution——

Certainly, but the Deputy was not here for Deputy Coughlan's contribution.

I consider that Deputy O'Donnell's views on this matter were not motivated by narrow party political considerations. From my limited experience in the House, and looking around here this evening, I consider Deputy O'Donnell to be one of the most active, competent and effective Deputies and one of the very few Deputies in this House who bothers doing his homework in relation to his responsibility as a shadow spokesman. I am not of the same political party but I have no hesitation in saying that I consider him to be one of the finest Opposition spokesmen on Transport and Power in the history of this State since it was founded. I think the Minister was grossly unfair; it is sour grapes, simply intellectual jealousy, losing his cool because Deputy O'Donnell, as is his right, was keeping the pressure on the Minister as an Opposition spokesman, while, at the same time, not yielding to party political attitudes. I do not think that was Deputy O'Donnell's intention nor is it his custom. Putting it in the normal parliamentary sense, I do not think the Minister was being fair and I think that, in fact, the Minister only injured his own reputation and further reduced the credibility he himself possesses as a political figure.

Deputy O'Donnell accused the Minister of selling out. What is that but a party political attitude? Be fair -minded about it. I agree with the Deputy's views of Deputy O'Donnell; he is an excellent Deputy but let us be fair about it. He accused the Minister of selling out.

He did not accuse the Minister——

Yes, he did.

He said quite properly he would not tolerate——

And Deputy Stephen Coughlan said——

Deputy Desmond.

I agree with the Deputy's views on Deputy O'Donnell. I think he is an excellent spokesman but let us be fair about this one issue. That is all that is involved.

I have read carefully what Deputy O'Donnell said and I do not share the views of the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Deputy is being most unfair about it. He is being partisan himself.

I do not think Deputy O'Donnell can be accused of indicating that the Government had sold out in regard to Shannon. He was quite rightly exercising his function as an Opposition spokesman to serve notice on the Government, as is his prerogative, to make sure that no such thing occurred.

One might, I suppose, summarise this question as the issue of the landing rights at Dublin. It is important that we in the Labour Party, both the Deputies from the south of Ireland and those interested in the matter in the greater Dublin area, should state and put our position on record so that there will be no illusions here or in America about where we stand. I think Ireland stands to lose by—I would even say— any alteration in the present US-Irish air agreement that would permit US airlines to operate scheduled services into Dublin Airport in addition to their present rights at Shannon. We recognise—we may have been slow to do so at times—that air traffic rights in a country are assets which are just as valuable as any of the normal, natural resources of a country. Such assets involve employment, growth of income and, above all, foreign earnings. Nowadays, such assets are only exchanged after very tough bargaining. In some instances we have given virtual carte blanche to foreign enterprises to explore, if not exploit, some of our natural resources. I had reservations about Government policy in relation to mineral exploration: I had substantial reservations about Government policy in regard to oil exploration. I have even greater reservations about Government policy in relation to our natural gas resources and in relation to negotiations with foreign enterprises, particularly during the past ten years.

Therefore, this country cannot afford to squander or give away in negotiation all those valuable air routes on the basis of a hunch, on the basis of an American promise or a gesture of goodwill. From my experiences in the trade union movement, I can say that other countries guard very jealously their air traffic rights and, consequently, disagreement on this question is one which is of very frequent occurrence. The US has had major air right differences during the past few years with Britain, Canada, Greece, Italy, Japan, Australia and other countries. What we are involved in with them is nothing new.

Britain at present is concerned about air rights and the British Opposition spokesman has confirmed this to us and has written a good deal about it. They are trying to reduce the American capacity into the British market. The Australians are in strong disagreement with the Americans in regard to capacity on the Pacific and South Atlantic and are opposing efforts by America to increase the capacity of their carriers into Australia. The Americans have a great deal of experience. They know all the tricks of the trade in terms of air traffic negotiations.

I wish the Minister and the Irish negotiators well but, like the Minister, I have no illusions about the difficulties facing our negotiators. Having left behind us the unduly petulant comments of the Minister on the shadow Fine Gael spokesman for Transport and Power, I think we should, in the words of Mr. M. J. Dargan, the general manager of Aer Lingus, close our ranks. He said:

It would be best for all Irish interests now to close our ranks and give our Government all the support we can in dealing with the negotiations ahead on which the immediate existence of Aer Lingus depends and which will have effects on Shannon Airport, on tourism and on the balance of payments. Ireland is, after all, a very small community as compared to the wealth and might of the country which is putting the pressure on us and the Irish negotiators have plenty of moral justification. But the physical strength lies with the opposition and they are accustomed to using it in the airline rights negotiations around the world on which they keep a top level team permanently employed.

They are sobering words said Mr. Dargan and, therefore, I would urge that the collective ability of the Minister for Transport and Power. Deputy O'Donnell and the other Opposition spokesman be mobilised and, if you like, that the hatchet should be buried so that we can take on the Americans in the negotiating sense in a more hopeful manner instead of trying to gut one another as was attempted in the lunch-time programme on RTE today.

Which one was that—Deputy Coughlan's contribution?

I have said what I wanted to say.

Was it Deputy Cruise-O'Brien on the radio programme?

The US-Ireland bilateral air agreement of 1945 was amended in 1947 and it is to the credit of the then Fianna Fáil Government that in the context of 1945 it was a reasonable agreement. It is to the credit of farseeing men in this country such as the late Seán Lemass that it has been preserved down through the years. This country, with a total population of 3 million, has designated as its transatlantic carrier Aer Lingus-Irish. On the other hand, I would draw the contrast of America, with a population of 200 million, designating three carriers, PAA, TWA and Seaboard. That is the general situation in relation to Ireland.

Under the bilateral agreement Ireland have rights to operate services to three points, New York, Boston and Chicago, and services to Chicago can operate via Boston and New York. It is important to point out that PAA have rights to Shannon from a range of American cities, winding up with Los Angeles, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle. TWA have rights into Shannon from a range of American cities and on the cargo side Seaboard have rights to Shannon from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chigago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Washington, Detroit, Cleveland. In addition to having all of these rights from those cities to Ireland, the American carriers have rights from Ireland to a variety of places.

PAA pick up from Ireland to the UK, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark and a whole range of other countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Poland, Russia, Austria, Hungary and others. TWA have a whole range of other rights from Ireland. We tend to, or the Irish people seem to, be unaware of the seriousness of the situation. I think Aer Lingus employees are extremely aware of it and the general manager is already talking in terms of 2,000 or 3,000 jobs being lost. That is omnious talk coming from Mr. Dargan.

These are some of the countries. Seaboard have rights beyond Ireland to the UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, West Germany and many of the other countries I have mentioned. The rights which the American airlines have at Shannon are the fullest that it is possible to grant. These are known as fifth freedom rights: they permit the setting down and up-lifting of passengers and cargo at Shannon, travelling either East or West, to or from any point in the world. There is no restriction on frequency.

These rights of three American carriers, compared to one Irish carrier having rights to New York, Boston and Chicago show the gross imbalance that exists between the rights that the US carriers have and the rights that the Irish carrier has. I presume this is the nub of the arguments of the Irish negotiators. There can be no doubt but that the balance of the present agreements is in favour of the US. It is time that the American pressure in that regard began to yield and that they began to realise that we in this country have literally nothing to give. In making a comparison between other European countries and American rights, it is important to bear the current situation in mind. Three major US carriers operate into Shannon, the international airport of a country of 3,000,000 people.

The only other centres in Europe in which all three US carriers operate are London, which is the main gateway to a country of 52.5 million people; Paris, the gateway to a country of 49 million people; and Frankfurt, the gateway to a country of 59 million. In the case of Italy, a country of 52 million people, the two passenger carriers, PAA and TWA, have rights to Rome and the cargo carrier has rights to Milan. The two US passenger carriers operate also into Madrid in a country where there are 31 million people, and into Lisbon which is a country of 8.5 million people. In all of the following cases, only one US carrier is licensed to operate: Poland, a country of 31.5 million people; Turkey where there are 31.4 million people; Yugoslavia, a population of 19.3 million; Rumania, 18.9 million; Czechoslavakia, 13.4 million; The Netherlands, 12.2 million; Belgium, 9.4 million; Greece, 8.4 million; Sweden, 7.6 million; Austria, 7.2 million; Switzerland, 5.4 million; Denmark, 4.7 million; Finland, 4.6 million; and Norway, 3.7 million. West Germany, because of her history, may be regarded as a special case; one US passenger carrier operates into four of its main cities: Berlin, Hamburg, Munich and Dusseldorf.

Therefore, it cannot be said that we have been ungenerous down through the years to the American airlines, and this cannot be contradicted by their negotiators in any sense in terms of our claims and of our legitimate aspirations to bring about a negotiated agreement. I expect there will be a negotiated agreement but it cannot be one that would wreck the Irish national airlines that we have succeeded in building up over a period of time. No doubt, these facts are in the brief of our negotiators but they must be reiterated here. Also, they must be conveyed to the American people but above all, they must be conveyed to the Irish taxpayer who must bear the brunt of the losses of Aer Lingus. I am sure it is not the wish of either the Irish taxpayer, the management of the company or of the Cabinet that there would be substantial losses on the part of Aer Lingus.

We must indicate clearly that down through the years Irish traffic generally has developed better than the traffic to European countries since Aer Lingus commenced services. This has been due to the greater promotion of Ireland as a destination, and to the fact that an adequate service has been provided. It is the opinion of Aer Lingus, and the opinion of the trade unionists employed there and of the staff associations with whom I have had correspondence, that, so far as transatlantic traffic is concerned, Ireland is one market to be sold in the US whether a carrier has rights to Dublin or to Shannon. It is the belief of Aer Lingus that the US carriers have had a good opportunity of developing business into Ireland during many years and that, if they mounted promotional efforts comparable to those of Aer Lingus, the total tourist market to Ireland would benefit greatly and so would the US carriers concerned. Likewise, if they had exploited the opportunities that are even now available to them, they could have made a great contribution to their own revenue while improving greatly total tourism to Ireland. In the meantime tourism to Ireland can suffer only if the US carriers get rights to Dublin.

Personally, I have been under some pressure to accept the validity of the Dublin case because I represent a constituency which has substantial hotel interests, but, in this case, local or provincial aspirations must take second place and the national interest and the interest of our national airline, as well as the interest of the western region must, by and large, take precedence. Of course it has been argued that the more carriers flying into Dublin, the more traffic will be generated. It appears to be, by reference to some principle, that competition increases total promotion automatically. This principle is not relevant at all to the Dublin situation.

We know that Aer Lingus-Irish have only got routes between Ireland and North America. In the North American market, they have only one thing to sell and that is Ireland. Their entire sales and promotion efforts in the US and Canada are directed solely to selling Ireland since their own existence and future depend on the success of such efforts. Other carriers have other interests and consequently they have a more diffused selling effort generally. We might even say that the messages can be summarised very briefly—and we see the problems facing Aer Lingus in this regard—that whereas the Irish carrier Aer Lingus adopts the slogan of "Fly to Ireland and come Aer Lingus-Irish", most of the American carriers adopt the policy of "Fly PanAm or TWA world-wide". They say "We go wherever you want to" and "We go where you are going" and whether it would be Ireland or not would be incidental. Meanwhile they want rights to travel in and out of Dublin.

Aer Lingus in 1970-71 spent 1.5 million dollars in publicity generally in North America. This included plain advertising, sales material and so on, and in the current year they are planning to spend almost 1.7 million dollars, or £706,000. These figures show that by far the greatest efforts are being made in terms of promoting Ireland in North America. Bord Fáilte, because of the lower volume of funds which they have available from resources, spent figures which on a comparable basis would be almost half those of Aer Lingus in 1970-71, including their own special promotional budget. In 1970-71 Bord Fáilte Éireann spending was much smaller, with the difficulties surrounding the special supplementary budget available and so on, and I would say it was a figure of around 35 per cent at most of the Aer Lingus-Irish budget generally. That is not a great position to be in.

In addition to this publicity expenditure on the part of Aer Lingus, the sales expenditure in terms of pay and overheads and sales spread throughout the United States amounted to approximately two million dollars last year. This year it will be well up, touching the five million dollar mark. Thus I think it is important to point out that Aer Lingus-Irish—we may so summarise it—spent about one-tenth, with all that big effort, of what PanAm spent in plain advertising themselves in the United States, despite the fact that Aer Lingus-Irish revenue was only one-twenty-fifth, or 4 per cent, of PanAm revenue and when it is considered that all the Aer Lingus-Irish advertising expenditure was directed to promoting travel to Ireland, whereas PanAm advertising was directed to selling on a world-wide travel basis, some idea can be had of the vast difference in the effort being made by the two airlines in relation to this country. This should be stated in no uncertain terms to the American Government. That perhaps, speaking as I am to the converted, may be old hat to many of us, but I think that the degree of reaction in this country should not be built up on a mere antiAmerican emotional basis, but on the basis that we have a case, a case which will not be dominated by ultimatums from Washington, a case which will not be dominated by the United States Government giving notice, as they gave notice last August, a year's notice, of refusal of entry for our Atlantic arm to New York. That kind of negotiating blackmail has its dangers and it has particular dangers as far as public reaction is concerned. I do not think that anything constructive can come out of it in terms of American negotiating policy. That kind of ultimatum, therefore, should be dropped and negotiations should proceed on a more rational and calmer basis.

We have now been about 11 years working jet operations over the Atlantic and we have extended our routes to Chicago and Montreal. I remember my father, as Lord Mayor of Cork, travelling to Montreal on the inaugural flight, and the great pride he had, and which many Irish people had in the North American continent, was that we as a very small country could extend our international airline network into both Chicago and Montreal, and make it a viable proposition at the same time. It must be appreciated in this country that these routes and fleet have been expanded by Aer Lingus-Irish to meet the traffic as it expanded with its own promotional efforts, and that these services are operated the year round in comparison with many of the seasonal efforts of some of the Shannon-US routes flown by TWA and PanAm.

There seems to be some peculiar blockage in many people's minds in relation to the operation of interchange flights between Shannon and Dublin. I have certainly found from talking to relatives in America, or to American trade union officers when they visit this country, that the practice of interchange on an aircraft basis with Aer Lingus, as we have between Shannon and Dublin, has been a very well known practice for a very long time in America, some of whose own airlines participate in very similar interchange agreements between their own international and domestic carriers. There is nothing wrong in this and we should not have any inferiority about it. We have Pan American serving the route New Orleans to Atlanta, to Washington, to London on an interchange basis with Delta Airlines and we have the Minneapolis, Detroit, London, Amsterdam on an interchange with North-West Airlines. We have TWA serving cities I have been in on their flights, Denver, Kansas City, and Cleveland combining rights, and there are many other examples. These are all cases in which PanAm and TWA do not of themselves have the necessary traffic rights. They should not try to cod us with their crocodile tears in regard to Shannon-Dublin.

Therefore, the very extensive and, in my opinion, unbalanced operating privileges enjoyed by US carriers into and out of Ireland are not, I would suggest, even being repaid by them by traffic growth any way comparable to that generated by the national airline in this country and this appears to be due to their failure. They can take it or leave it as far as I am concerned, and as far as the thousands of workers in Aer Lingus are concerned, they can take it or leave it. The American airlines have failed to exploit the very substantial rights which they possess in excess of those available as of now to Aer Lingus-Irish, namely, rights from many cities to which the Irish carrier does not have rights in the United States; secondly, they have failed to mount an adequate promotional effort for travel to this country on the routes from Boston-New York-Chicago which they share with Aer Lingus-Irish and have failed to provide a regular system of services between Boston or Chicago and Ireland. It is not our responsibility if the American airlines have neglected the opportunities available to their US carriers and certainly it is no help to Irish tourism which could have benefited quite considerably, if these opportunities had been properly exploited.

Because they failed to exploit their own advantages in relation to the Shannon rights to the full, the American carriers are of course now anxious to extend their services to Dublin in order to take advantage of the marketing effort which has already been mounted by Aer Lingus at very considerable expense. It is contended that the granting of rights to the US carriers to fly to Dublin would result in a lesser total promotional effort for Ireland. This is the contention of the Aer Lingus management. We might sum it up by saying that they would be taking Aer Lingus-Irish business instead of creating their own business and, as Aer Lingus money shrank, there would be less money available to spend on both sales and publicity and since the American airlines spend a smaller proportion of each dollar earned on promotional work than Aer Lingus-Irish do, and still less in promoting Ireland, the total promotional effort for this country would be less.

I do not propose to dwell at length— I am not competent to do so—on whether or not the perverse competition generated would improve traffic. The Federal Aviation Agency policy paper prepared in 1963 said that two US flag carriers are justified only on routes that are thick and densely travelled. This paper, by the present president of PanAm, has been thrown in the face of the American negotiators already. That paper stated:

Neither the interests of a sound transportation system nor of the countries involved are served when a route with little traffic is burdened by a number of carriers greater than is economically justifiable. The demand for swift, safe passage, not forced flag flying, should determine the services offered.

The paper also pointed out that:

The problem of the number of carriers on a particular route or in a market extends to markets having dense traffic, such as the North Atlantic, which is now served by 19 carriers. It must be our overall policy not to accentuate this situation which, on its face, cannot be sound.

In a quite recent interview in Air Travel in May, 1971, the president of PanAm also stated that the position formulated at that time still made good sense. He went on to say that:

There are only a few markets in the world on which it would pay to have two US airlines operating. Every place else it's unnecessary duplication and a waste... The public must pay a higher fare as a result, because it's not getting the most efficient kind of transportation.

He said, and this should be a lesson, to us:

Just look at Hawaii, eight carriers, fares going up, and they'll go up even higher because the money to make eight carriers profitable has to be greater than the money to make three carriers profitable... The argument is that this would generate new traffic... Well, the traffic growth has declined with the proliferation of carriers.

Therefore, more than two-thirds of Irish terminating transatlantic traffic carried on the scheduled services of all airlines use Shannon. Less than onethird use Dublin. That means that for two-thirds of the market the Irish Airline, with its limited rights, competes with three US airlines with virtually unlimited rights. To permit this competition to extend to the remaining one-third of the market which now uses Dublin would unbalance the rights in favour of the US airlines to the point of absurdity. Therefore, if there should be any concern that Aer Lingus-Irish is lacking competition and therefore likely to suffer the common symptoms of a monopoly organisation, it should be possible to allay it. Apart from the fact that for a very large part of their North Atlantic business to and from Shannon, they are faced with a degree of American competition matched only by the huge markets of London, Paris, Rome and Frankfurt; they also have had in the past year to compete with other carriers. Virtually all European carriers have rights between Shannon and the United States.

It is worthwhile, therefore, in terms of the Aer Lingus-Irish essential commitment to the Ireland-US market, to look at the lack of commitment of some of these other carriers. Air France resumed services which had long been suspended between Shannon and New York in 1967. They operated for two seasons and then packed it up in 1969. The reasons which caused them to give up was shortage of aircraft elsewhere and the fact that traffic into Ireland had too low a yield to be worth the effort. In other words, they gave up the route when it was no longer in their financial interests to fly it. They cannot be criticised for doing this. It was a reasonably sensible business decision, but it shows that carriers can have a lack of commitment and it shows that if we concede rights to one or three of the American carriers there is nothing to stop them folding up their tents and moving on when it suits them rather than when it suits this country. KLM served Ireland regularly at one stage and then intermittently and actually surrendered its rights between Shannon and the United States in negotiations with the United States to get entry to Chicago from Amsterdam. We should not be under any illusions about what we are facing in these negotiations.

The impact of a substantial change in the present Ireland-US rights situation can be summed up in the variables of the negotiations. I shall put four questions to the Minister. Would the US carrier, say PanAm, operate via Shannon? Would TWA and Seaboard continue to have rights to and through Shannon? Would Pan-American Airways secure onward rights from Dublin to the UK and mainland Europe? Would there be a frequency restriction on PAA flights into Dublin? There are a number of factors automatically affected by those questions. There is the revenue of Aer Lingus-Irish; there is Ireland's foreign earnings; there is the promotional activity for Ireland abroad; there is employment in Aer Lingus-Irish; the survival of Aer Lingus-Irish is possibly in jeopardy; of course, the development of the Shannon region is also in jeopardy. Those are some of the aspects involved.

There is a comment by the general manager of Aer Ligus which sums up the situation which might develop. I quote:

The stark fact is that if we were to be excluded from New York we would probably have to wind up our Atlantic operation, certainly in the form which we know it today. Over £19 million or more than half our total revenue comes from the Atlantic and the obvious implication is that the destruction of our North Atlantic operation would just about halve the size of the airline in terms of fleet, organisational structure and so on. I would not like to attempt to define for you whether it would be 2,000 jobs or 3,000 jobs that would be lost or to go into any other breakdown. Our exclusion from New York is just unthinkable. Nevertheless if the United States carries out the formal notice they have given to the Irish Government this is what will happen.

As to our attitude on the attempts by the US carriers to get into Dublin, our position is unchanged because the facts are unchanged. The three giant carriers, Pan American, TWA and Seaboard World, have better rights than we have in two-thirds of the US/ Ireland market. They want the same plane service for the remaining third (Dublin). It is ironical that it is our success in out-selling and out-servicing PanAm, TWA and Seaboard World, which brings the sustained pressure from them to their Government to get our wings clipped. And that very success lulls the Irish community into the comforting feeling that Aer Lingus will be able to take care of itself in all eventualities. Our friends' confidence in us is gratifying, but we have to explain what it would mean for us to have to take on the three US airlines out of their home market against the vast resources of capital, fleet and manpower in unbalanced competition. More than that, they would be able to fly from any city in the US to Shannon, with one or more of them into Dublin as well, but we could be restricted to flying between Shannon and three US cities. New York, Boston and Chicago.

Some equality of competition! I think Mr. Dargan is talking very sound common sense. The entry of one US airline into Dublin on even minimum terms would cause grave financial harm to Aer Lingus whereas the gain to the American airline would probably be negligible.

We know that, Deputy.

But it must be reiterated to the Minister. The concern in this House is not very evident by the fact that there are only four Deputies here tonight.

With respect, in all friendliness, there is no point in our being like goldfish in a bowl.

Perhaps we are talking to the converted.

I would hope so but I would regard it as a tragedy if on the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power, one of the most serious national issues had been allowed to go with but a few comments from a few Deputies, with no formal statement of the information we received in the House being placed fully on the record.

I do not propose to delay the House much further but I do think that it should be pointed out that Pan-American is a company owned by private shareholders and that the objectives of PanAm management is to produce dividends for those shareholders and to increase the network of PanAm. It is no harm that a country which, of its own ingenuity and expertise, built up a national airline of which it can be proud, should point out that, on the other hand, Aer Lingus is owned by the people of the country and has always seen its task as a national one. If we were to handle the negotiations in Washington on the American style, solely from the profit motive, that is a situation that the Irish people could not ignore, a situation which could have grave consequences. I am not referring to the effect on the Shannon region as such. There has been a great deal of understandable reaction from the area and from Deputies in the area but, because I happen to be a Dublin Deputy, that is not to say that I do not fully appreciate the dire consequences this revision could have on the economy of the mid-west tourist region. I honestly do not think there is any Government policy on regional development. It happens to come about rather than to be the result of any conscious Government decision. Any agreement which would increase the current imbalance between the eastern region and the western parts of the country in respect of living standards, population growth, industrial development, tourism development, and so on, would be quite tragic and most undesirable. Therefore, we want to see an agreement reached between the Government and the American negotiators which would avoid that result.

These are my views. I had intended contributing to the discussion because I have had approaches from the trade unions involved in Aer Lingus who have been very concerned about this situation but my anxiety to speak was accentuated when the Minister made his attack on Deputy O'Donnell. He was not here when I gave my views of what he said. A fairly sharp relationship developed between the Minister and Deputy O'Donnell over the last two years in which, inevitably, the Opposition spokesman is at a disadvantage in that the Minister has his permanent staff. The Minister is the political head of the Department and he will have to take the political responsibility for the outcome of the negotiations. It may be felt that, perhaps, in a very narrow sense, we on this side of the House would take whatever advantage we could get from whatever disabilities may be suffered by the Minister in negotiations, but I can assure the Minister that that is not the intention and that is not the desire and it is not the political situation that we on this side of the House would like to see created in relation to the outcome of these discussions. To that extent we wish the Minister well.

As an Opposition, we have the right to ensure that the best possible settlement is reached. If the boot were on the other foot, if Deputy O'Donnell were sitting in the seat now occupied by the Minister, I am quite sure there would be Opposition Deputies on this side of the House crucifying the Government for its attempts to negotiate a way out of this impasse. I have never discovered in my reading of the records of this House a Fianna Fáil Opposition giving any leeway to a Government Minister, no matter how sensitive the situation was. I think Deputy O'Donnell was acting in the best interests of the country and of this House and I would strongly urge that there should be no further reaction on either side now that the matter is, we hope, closed.

There are two minor points I want to make. I want to ask the Minister to consider, if at all possible, the placing of contracts by Irish Shipping with both Belfast and Verolme. Other State-sponsored companies might also consider adopting a similar policy. I accept the reasons given for placing shipping contracts with the Upper Clyde Shipyard and we should, I think, congratulate the board and management of Irish Shipping on their successful efforts in getting out of an impasse. However, in future, our Irish yards should have priority. It may surprise my colleague, Mr. Paddy Hill, that an Irish State-sponsored body should place contracts in Belfast, but I believe this is something that should be done and done openly.

I do not want to be too critical of the prices charged in some of our hotels in recent years, but I can assure the Minister the British lower and middle income group visitors to our shores have not found the price of drink, for example, to take just one commodity, in our east coast hotels conducive to a return visit. The Minister should encourage both Bord Fáilte and the new Prices Commission to keep a very sharp eye on the situation. I have no doubt he will do so. It is a shortsighted policy to price ourselves out of a good market.

The Minister has had a particularly difficult year. It was, indeed, a year in which no Minister for Transport and Power could hope to gain any political kudos. Many of the things affecting the situation were quite outside the scope of the Minister's responsibility. The Minister was not responsible for the recession in the United States of America. He was not responsible for the rising unemployment in Britain. He was not responsible for the situation in Northern Ireland. He was not responsible for the sudden decision by the American Government with regard to landing rights; indeed, in that particular context, he has both our sympathy and our support. Any efforts he makes to ensure that our tourist industry and our transport and power sector develop as an integral part of our infrastructure will certainly be supported by Opposition Deputies. We wish him well in these things, with just one reservation in respect of a couple of pages in his introductory statement to the House.

I should, first of all, like to congratulate the Minister on his very detailed introductory statement on his Estimate. The Minister is in charge of a very complex Department. I believe he is doing an excellent job.

The main point I wish to deal with is the current Irish-US air situation. I condemn, I deplore and I depreciate the strong arm tactics of the American Government against our small and comparatively poor nation; worse still, these tactics are adopted against the poorest and most depressed sector of our nation, the western seaboard. These are tactics normally associated with undiluted imperialism, tactics completely alien to traditional American policies and attitudes towards developing nations, and especially towards Ireland.

We should not have to remind the USA of the strong ties between our countries. We should not have to remind them of the valuable contribution made by the Irish to the building up of modern America. I condemn the ruthlessness of the American airlines which have been fairly and squarely beaten by our airlines on the North Atlantic route. Despite the fact that, on balance, the current air agreement is very much in their favour, they now seek to further accentuate this imbalance with us. If their request is not granted they are going to terminate Aer Lingus rights into Kennedy Airport, New York. Do they not realise the disastrous consequences that this sanction will have, not only on our national airline, but on our economy? Do they not realise they are callously trying to impede our national policy in relation to the western seaboard especially the mid-western region?

In relation to the mid-west we in Fianna Fáil have a very proud record. Over the past 25 years successive Fianna Fáil Governments have caused an investment of almost £40 million at Shannon Airport giving direct employment at the moment to 8,000 people. Shannon is the power-house of the mid-west region and its influence can be felt along the entire west coast. As Dr. Eamonn Casey, Bishop of Kerry, stated yesterday, "Shannon is a gleaming beacon giving inspiration and hope to all our people along the western seaboard". The Shannon experiment has more than justified its great architect, Seán Lemass. Shannon Airport was conceived in 1947 when most European countries were not thinking in terms of sophisticated regional planning. It can, therefore, be said that Shannon was the pioneer of regional development not merely in this country but in Western Europe.

I warn the Americans that if they upset our national policy by forcing centralisation this will arouse anti-American feeling. I doubt very much if the US Government wants this at a time when she needs all the allies she can possibly muster in Europe. Last Sunday I listened to a spokesman from the US Embassy on RTE. He went to great lengths to justify the American case for landing rights into Dublin Airport. His case was weak and it was based entirely on this mythical imbalance which he stated was in our favour. I took notes while he was speaking and he stated as follows according to my notes:

With the exception of Berne (Switzerland) Dublin is the only major European capital into which the US carriers do not have rights to land.

We would like to obtain landing rights in Dublin because we would like to provide this service to the American people.

Secondly, as a matter of equity we feel that the present bilateral agreement between our two countries is severely out of balance. We have granted access to the Irish airlines under the terms of the agreement to a market of over 40 million people; in return the agreement limits us to landing rights in the Shannon area which has a market of 270,000 people. In this connection we are aware, of course, that the Irish Government has created landing rights in both Dublin and Shannon to the following countries: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK, Portugal and Czechoslovakia. As a matter of equity we feel we should not be discriminated against.

That surely is a gem. It is only half the story as the countries mentioned have only limited rights. In fact, they are not operating into the country. He goes on to say:

For 13 years we have been talking constantly with the Irish Government and have been told "No" on each occasion. Now the agreement itself provides that, if either side feels that there is an inequity and they are unable to adjust this inequity through consultation or talks, then either side is permitted by agreement to suspend rights granted to the other party thereby, unilaterally, bringing the agreement into balance. We feel that, in taking this measure, we have not used the economic muscle; we have merely exercised our rights in the agreement.

To suggest that the balance is in our favour is a blatant inaccuracy. The previous speaker dealt at length with this aspect of the air agreement. Even to the most casual observer it must be very plain that the balance is very much in favour of America. I presume the case expounded by the Embassy spokesman last Sunday is the official American case. It is a very, very weak case. He was asked by the interviewer if he realised that, if the sanctions were imposed, they would have a disastrous effect on the Irish economy and the national airline, and the Embassy spokesman replied: "We have a great deal of faith in the Shannon area. American people have invested money there estimated at £15 million, employing 3,000 people. We are aware that major hotel chains in the US are even now negotiating for locations within two or three miles of Shannon and they, like we, have great faith that Shannon is going to grow and will always be a major tourist attraction and a place where US airlines will always want to fly to."

Major hotel chains in the US may be negotiating for locations within two or three miles of the airport but the current rumour rampant in my area is that two American citizens have options on two sites between Dublin Airport and the city centre on the assumption that American carriers will be allowed in. I realise that, apart from American pressures, there are pressures from within as was evidenced by the infamous decision of the National Tourist Council. Hotels in Dublin already are suffering from under-occupancy. I sympathise with them. Business is bad and times are hard but is it any wonder? Last August my wife and I were charged £11 in a second grade city centre hotel for a bedroom and a continental breakfast. Perhaps if I had an American accent the figure would have been doubled.

I am sorry to introduce a note of discord into my speech but, like the Minister, I was bitterly disappointed at the political opportunism of Deputy O'Donnell. In making the outrageous attack not merely on the Minister but on the Government, accusing them of a massive sell-out, wittingly or unwittingly, he undermined the Government's stand on the eve of the vital Washington talks.

Deputy Barrett, Deputy Coughlan, Deputy O'Donnell and myself, and other public figures involved, agreed that we would leave it to the negotiators. This was agreed in the Minister's office when he kindly granted us two hours of his valuable time. It was agreed then that nothing would be said that would jeopardise the situation or undermine the stand taken by the Government. I do not understand what Deputy O'Donnell means when he talks about a sell-out. We heard Deputy Desmond speak about his father's elation when he went on the inaugural flight to Montreal in 1960. It was a pity Deputy Desmond was not in Shannon in 1948.

I do not like looking backwards but I must do so in this instance. I was a victim of that massive sell-out by the first Coalition Government in 1948. I was trying to work my way through college, times were hard, and I thought I had got a good job at Shannon Airport. Within a fortnight the clanger dropped; there was a change of Government and that put paid to my hopes and those of many of my colleagues.

I can assure everyone that as a Fianna Fáil TD for the region and from my bitter experience in 1948, I am doubly committed not merely to the preservation of the status quo at Shannon Airport but to its continued expansion not only with regard to civil aviation but throughout the entire sector of industry.

In view of the topicality of the matter, much of the debate has been devoted to the air rights issue which is now in contention between the Irish Government and the United States Government. Although much of the discussion here is welcome so far as putting the facts on record is concerned, it is really a case of preaching to the converted.

I would hope every right-thinking Irishman would be concerned that we preserve the advantages we have at the moment under the air agreement, both for the benefit of our national airline and for the benefit of the regional development of the Shannon area. That is our attitude and it will continue to be our attitude, and that is the reason talks have been suspended in Washington and our negotiators are returning to Ireland. I hope to see them tomorrow and to discuss in detail what happened in Washington.

We are preserving a firm negotiating attitude. I should like to emphasise the fact that the United States Government for their own motives—which I do not wish to discuss—have wielded a very big stick in the form of the threatened abolition of landing rights for our national airline in New York as from 18th August, 1972. This is a fact of political life. There is no point in discussing this matter as if we were all goldfish in a bowl or, as I told Deputy O'Donnell, as if we were in a debating society. I could spend two hours talking about points in favour of our retaining the status quo. These facts have been made known to the American administration right up to the President of the United States. Full representations have been made by the Taoiseach to him. All the facts of our case that have been adumbrated here by Deputies, which are well known to the Irish public, have been made known to all levels in the American administration.

This has been done over a long number of years and we have held our position. Now the situation has been radically changed by reason of the drastic action of the present administration in serving notice of withdrawal of landing rights as from 18th August next. This is power politics; we are not in a debating society or at a seminar. In this situation it behoves everyone, both inside and outside this House, who is concerned about the interests of Ireland, not to make wild, irresponsible and mischievious allegations about the motives of the Government who have the responsibility at the present time. There could be another Government if the people decide otherwise, but now the Government have responsibility in this matter; they have the total support of every political party in the Dáil in this matter and they have the support of everyone concerned in the Shannon region and everyone concerned about our national airline.

This is not the time, by comment or otherwise, to show a divisive front. This is a time at which I would expect responsibility rather than irresponsibility, an adult approach rather than a mischievous approach. Everyone who talks in public about this matter should remember that the Irish Government are negotiating on behalf of the Irish people with another Government. By reason of the tremendous dependence which our national airline and the whole development of tourism in Shannon and throughout the country have on landings in New York, the United States Government have considerable pressure which they thought fit to exert in this instance. I do not want to go into details about our dependence on New York with regard to our tourist business from North America. All I shall say is that we depend very much on New York.

We resent and deplore the fact that the American Government have seen fit to take this action but these are the facts of political life in the present American administration and apparently this is the way they are doing business now. It is one of the brutal facts of life with which we must deal. We shall deal with it as best we can in the best interests of the Irish people. I would appeal to all Deputies and to everyone concerned with the welfare of the country to cease mischiefmaking, to cease making party political capital because this is far too important a national issue for us to engage in any petty bickering.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the Government show leadership we will follow.

That is rather trite. Deputy O'Donovan opened the debate and referred to the growth in ESB activities, and rightly so. Our growth rate in electricity consumption is one of the highest in Europe, running at 10.4 per cent on the latest figure. It has been over a 10 per cent growth in each year for the past four years. On this pattern in five years time we will require twice the generating capacity which we have at the moment. This will necessitate substantial capital investment and it is all-important to maintain the ESB in a profit making position having regard to their need to raise capital investment for the provision of the generation that will be necessary in the years ahead.

I mention that because I want to put the various rates increases sought by the ESB into the context that were the ESB not to ask for the price increases required by them to maintain a balanced position in regard to their accounts, they would not be in a position to obtain the finance necessary to provide the generation that will be so essential for the national economy in the years ahead. Any price increases sought by the ESB must be put in that context. If the ESB were not in a sound financial position they could not raise the necessary money and in this respect the ESB are acting for the community because they are the agent of the community to provide the power required for community development in the field of economic expansion.

One heartening development in recent weeks was the discovery of natural gas off the coast of Cork near Kinsale. On a rough average, the capital cost involved in using natural gas is 60 per cent that of nuclear energy as a source of power. The oil fired power station in the vicinity of the find could be converted fairly easily and rapidly to natural gas. There is no great problem there. This again emphasises another point I propose to make in the context of transport. It is very easy to stand up here as if one were at a seminar and talk glibly about a White Paper posing all the solutions to the problem in any fields of Government activity, but I have found in the Department for which I am responsible that the whole situation is very fluid and very open at present. In the whole field of energy it is not a time for hard and fast decisions pending the emergence of the full picture.

As I have said, we may have just made a substantial find of natural gas off the southern coast. Explorations are going on for oil. There may be further finds of natural gas. These explorations off our coast which have been very promising on the natural gas side so far, may change our whole attitude to our sources of supply of energy in the years ahead. Indeed, legislation concerning nuclear energy went through the House some months ago and the thinking at that time was —and the ESB have done considerable planning on this—that a nuclear energy station was imminent. This decision might be—and I say might be— changed completely if we discover a substantial amount of natural gas or oil resources adjacent to our coast.

This is the sort of thinking that induced me to bring the ESB and the Dublin Gas Company together as a start on the basis of working out a joint approach in regard to the utilisation of energy and deciding in what way their activities could be made complementary in relation to the provision of gas and electricity as sources of power in the major cities. Enormous sums of money can be saved provided our attitude is not too rigid and provided that we have not got a White Paper or a blueprint on energy but that instead we go about this matter in a sensible way and discuss in a pragmatic manner what can be done and what cannot be done in view of the resources we have. If we do not adopt this approach we could walk ourselves into tremendous financial trouble by way of capital commitments and capital investment. With very definite signs of natural gas resources and with a fairly optimistic situation in regard to possible oil resources, we should keep all our options open in relation to the whole field of the provision of energy. That is what we are doing. We are watching the situation very closely. No commitments have been made other than the commitments that are in the best practical interests of the country.

Deputy O'Donovan also referred to the capital restructuring of Bord na Móna. He wanted to know what is meant by the proposed legislation which we will be introducing early next year in connection with Bord na Móna. I want to emphasise that what is involved is simply that Bord na Móna capital so far has consisted entirely of loan capital supplied mainly by the Exchequer and the consultants have proposed that part of the loan capital investment be written off and that another part be regarded as an equity investment by the State in Bord na Móna. They have recommended this by reason of their profit returns in recent years as well as justifying that type of confidence on the part of the State in their activities. The main aspect involved in the consultants proposals for capital restructuring is to make some of the loan investment an equity investment and so relieve Bord na Móna of the job of making a fixed return on the loan capital. Depending on their profit making position they will be able to make a return to the State on foot of the equity investment.

Deputy O'Donovan raised the question of farmhouse and guesthouse accommodation both of which have been excellent developments in regard to tourism. They have suitably diversified and expanded tourism outside the traditional field. He criticised the purchase of the 747 jumbo jets. This was a commercial decision taken by the national airline and I think in the context of the time rightly taken. Every airline in the world made a similar decision at the same time. Every airline in the world is having trouble with them. We are not unique in this respect. This is a very difficult time for airlines. Indeed, some of the giants in the airlines field—and this probably is part of the reason for the pressure by the American airlines—such as Pan-American Airlines and TransWorld Airlines are in serious financial difficulties, far more serious financial difficulties than those of our national airline.

Deputy O'Donovan also referred to Bord Fáilte and to excess commitments by Bord Fáilte. This problem arose because in 1965-66 there was a shortage of accommodation and Bord Fáilte embarked on a drive to provide that accommodation. Quite candidly, they over-reached themselves and the whole thing rushed ahead of the growth of tourism with the result that when I took up my present position I could see that, with the mounting commitments involved by way of grant arrangements made by Bord Fáilte, if that situation were to continue to escalate, accommodation would out-run potential tourist business. Therefore, we decided in mid1969 to suspend any further commitments and to clear up the existing commitments. With the allocation of £1 million extra towards hotel accommodation granted by the Minister for Finance in recent weeks we hope to clear away a large part of the arrears and we hope that by next year the arrears will be cleared entirely. We are now stretching the resources of Bord Fáilte far more in the direction of promotion and marketing. The objective now must be to fill the rooms that have been made available by reason of the crash programme undertaken in the 1960s. It may be that in two or three years time we shall have to embark on another programme, but at the present time accommodation is not the problem; the problem is to fill the accommodation that is available.

Deputy O'Donnell raised a question to which he has referred before, the accountability of State companies. This is a matter which is being considered at the moment by the Government. The Devlin report had many interesting comments to make on the question of making the State-sponsored organisations accountable as are the Departments of State and, as I say, the matter is being considered by the Government in the context of the Devlin report. I fully agree with Deputy O'Donnell that there should be some measure of Parliamentary review of State-sponsored bodies.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would the idea in Britain of parliamentary committees appeal to the Minister?

I would rather have it on the same basis as the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. O'Donnell

The existing Committee of Public Accounts would not be able to handle this. Would the Minister envisage separate committees for separate sectors?

If we were to do this the Committee of Public Accounts would have to be enlarged by way of sub-committees, as the Deputy suggests. This is a matter I can see developing. I have spoken to a number of the heads of State-sponsored organisations and they would welcome this.

Mr. O'Donnell

They have told me the same.

This is good for everyone concerned: it is good for the heads of the State-sponsored organisations; it is good for the members of the Dáil and for the public, that there should be this accountability and open approach. There is nothing worse than for matters to appear not to be open. When a State-sponsored executive comes and makes its case, in 99 per cent of cases it will fully satisfy everybody concerned that matters have been properly dealt with, and there will be an openness and a general understanding of where they are going and what their plans are.

Deputy O'Donnell also mentioned the co-ordination of State bodies. I agree fully with him in this respect, and I have had meetings held in my Department between the various State bodies of which he spoke here on several occasions and of which I took note, SFADCO, Bord Fáilte and CIE and the Airline, being the main ones, and B & I in some cases. We have got down to a basis of close co-operation between these bodies; a balance must be struck between such bodies being too competitive, commercial and so on, and having no commercial urge or commercial propulsion at all. A little competition between them is no harm. I can say from my evidence arising out of investigations I have made that Deputy O'Donnell is probably right in this respect, there has been a tendency in recent years to go a bit far in this direction.

Mr. O'Donnell

What I object to is, say, in the case of Manchester, that five or six State bodies have offices there. Why not have one office in Manchester, another in Liverpool, another in Sheffield, a much wider spreadout of the promotional manpower in tourism?

This is what we intend to do. Arising out of recent discussions we intend to ensure that they have joint promotional campaigns and possibly joint representation.

Mr. O'Donnell

I would put the B & I in Liverpool, Aer Lingus in Manchester, CIE in Sheffield. There would be a tremendous coverage if the resources were spread out.

There is more of that in the various fields and it is Bord Fáilte that are co-ordinating this. As far as Bord Fáilte is concerned, the main organisations there are CIE, Aer Lingus and SFADCO. These three particularly are being encouraged to work together for promotional purposes both in Britain and America. We have already taken steps in North America to do what the Deputy has suggested.

Duty-free facilities on the Irish sea were also mentioned by Deputy O'Donnell. I am very keen on this idea. It would be most desirable to have co-operation from Britain. At the moment I am awaiting a decision of the Revenue Commissioners on this matter.

Deputy O'Donnell is right again about ethnic holidays, and Bord Fáilte are now concentrating on this. I agree fully with him at this time, particularly with the adverse publicity we are getting by reason of the Northern situation, that the people on whom we should really concentrate are our own people abroad. Obviously, they are people who know the score in regard to the Northern situation and will not be influenced by any propaganda or bad publicity. They are the people to encourage.

Mr. O'Donnell

Give them some inducement.

On that, there is the campaign going with the various Irish groups and associations in Britain. Since Deputy O'Donnell spoke I left the House for a while to contact Bord Fáilte about this and they confirmed that advertising is not the best way to get at the Irish market. Deputy O'Donnell was critical of various advertising budget figures, that advertisements did not appear to be sent to periodicals or newspapers which the Irish would read. The Bord Fáilte view is that direct, man-to-man promotion among Irish clubs, associations and so on is more effective than advertising.

Mr. O'Donnell

What worries me is that Bord Fáilte has not the manpower to do this. I just cannot bring the figure to mind now but I know the existing Irish associations in Britain could not possibly do it. I mentioned The Irish Post, but I have no interest in it other than to the extent that it circulates among the emigrants. How can you physically make contact with every Irish association?

Bord Fáilte will have the help of the regional tourist organisations because they have the direct man-to-man or county to county contact.

Mr. O'Donnell

Bord Fáilte has not the manpower.

Through the regional tourist organisations we have the manpower utilising local contacts in the various regions.

Mr. O'Donnell

Bord Fáilte have my personal support in this effort. In fact, I will be going to Britain after Christmas and I shall assist in every way and use my contacts with the Irish associations. What really worried me was that, when I saw the advertising schedule—maybe I had not time to analyse it sufficiently—it appeared to me that Bord Fáilte were not really recognising the ethnic market.

The advertising schedule mentioned by Deputy O'Donnell is one line of attack on the tourist market, but there are extra funds and extra personnel now being assigned, and the strategy is being developed through the regional tourist organisations to get right into the heart of the Irish ethnic market in Britain through the various clubs, associations and county organisations there. The whole emphasis in the Bord Fáilte marketing campaign at the present time is in this direction. I can assure the Deputy of that.

There has been much criticism about consultants' reports. This is a fairly obvious form of criticism. If I were on the Opposition benches I would probably criticise consultants. It is fair game to criticise them. Let us be rational about this and not too parochial. It is important to get the advice of consultants. The trouble with State monopolies particularly—I am excepting those in the commercial field —like CIE, Bord Fáilte and the ESB, which are in a complete monopoly position, is that it is very difficult to quantify their performance all the time and to make sure that they are up to the mark. There is no profit and loss measuring rod as there is in the case of commercial bodies.

There is nothing more one can do, as Minister in charge of utilities of this kind, except, from time to time, when one is concerned about their performance to bring in outside advisers and to get an outside point of view so as to check and confirm one's own views about a particular matter. This is good for the organisations. It is good for CIE to have expert people like McKinsey's looking over their shoulders from time to time. It is good that Bord Fáilte and the ESB should be investigated in this way from time to time. It is only in that context that I see the value of bringing in consultants. I do not believe that the consultants have all the answers to all the problems. The Government have yet to consider fully the McKinsey report and to make decisions on that report. Their report will be assessed and analysed and appropriate decisions will be made. Consultants have a valuable contribution to make in giving independent advice to check against one's own views as to the performance of public utilities. In the case of any public utility in a monopoly position, where there is not a profit and loss measuring rod, I can see no way other than this of getting down to the guts of the problems concerned with their performance.

Deputy O'Donnell mentioned a matter in which he is perfectly right and that concerns the 1971 guide. I accept the Deputy's criticism of the 1971 Hotel Guide, particularly about the lateness of its arrival. I want to emphasise that this year Bord Fáilte have it practically ready and hope to have it published immediately after Christmas.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will it be out by the 1st January? It will be too late then.

It will be out by the 1st January and will be a considerable improvement over last year's guide as regards production. I would like to talk to the Deputy afterwards and to hear his views on this point.

Deputy Desmond raised a number of points concerning the air rights matter. I do not propose to go into that matter further. He also mentioned the question of the placing of future shipyard contracts. I want to say as regards the four ships commissioned by Irish Shipping with the Upper Clyde Shipyards that their construction is now proceeding. There were difficulties which have been cleared. We got very good value in terms of a loan made available through the Export Credit Guarantee Department at a very favourable interest rate of 5½ per cent. This is good value in so far as the Irish taxpayer is concerned. Verolme shipyard got first option on these boats but they declined the offer because of their very heavy programme. I have received a deputation from the management and workers of Verolme dockyard in recent weeks. They suggested that, in so far as the future is concerned, they would like to have a close liaison with the B & I and Irish Shipping with regard to further shipbuilding contracts. Consultation has been organised between the dockyard and the State shipping concern with a view to working out a planned construction programme over the next ten years.

Deputy Taylor, Deputy Barrett and Deputy Herbert were all rightly concerned about the Shannon rights issue. As I have stated already I have dealt fairly fully with that point.

I would like to refer to the question of the White Paper on transport policy. I would be inclined to have such a White Paper soon and will look after this matter as soon as we have resolved certain points. We must make a decision on foot of the McKinsey report first of all. We must finalise the details of the rationalisation arrangements entered into by British Rail and the B & I. These details are being worked out.

Mr. O'Donnell

This work is proceeding well?

Yes, and there will be a sharing of terminals and ships between the two organisations. The shipping consortiums concerned with live cattle are working very well and they are proposing an alternative route into Birkenhead. That is being discussed at the present time. This amalgamation within this subsidiary company of British Rail and the B & I for live cattle shipping will guarantee that the live cattle export situation will be secure in the future. This is important, in so far as the farmer is concerned, in order to ensure that an alternative live cattle outlet can be maintained alongside the dead meat trade.

To refer again to the question of having a White Paper with a full policy statement on transport, I am keen on this and await certain decisions before we can incorporate such a transportation policy in the form of a White Paper. We must await decisions in regard to the final rationalisation decisions of British Rail and the B & I in regard to cross-Channel shipping and the final Government decisions in regard to the rail and road traffic transport situation vis-à-vis CIE. I hope those decisions will be finalised within the next few months and I propose to have a White Paper published showing the way we will proceed in regard to internal and external transport on sea and land.

Motion to refer back, by leave, withdrawn.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share