andMr. J. O'Leary asked the Minister for Finance the present position concerning the application by Kerry County Airport Company for further financial aid and for the payment of the balance of a grant to enable the company to clear outstanding debts; and whether he has had regard to the importance of the airport in the future development of the county.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kerry Airport Company.
32.
Mr. McEllistrim
Kerry County Airport Company was approved for grants totalling £71,000 from the special regional development fund towards the capital costs of establishing an airport at Farranfore on condition that the company would meet all operating costs from its own resources. The grants, which were channelled through the Department of Transport and Power, were subject to conditions accepted by the company. In so far as the conditions have been met, the company has been paid the grants due.
The company sought a further grant of £33,000 to clear debts which have built up mainly because of operating losses. Circumstances do not justify waiving the condition accepted by the company that a grant would not be sought to cover such losses.
Deputy J. O'Leary.
Does that mean that the Minister has refused further assistance?
I have called Deputy John O'Leary to ask his supplementary question.
Is the Minister aware that the airport is not operating at a loss and that the debt is in respect of loans raised for capital development in the initial stages?
No. I fear the position is not as described by the Deputy. The affairs of the company are such as to have caused concern to the auditors of the company which they certified as far back as December, 1971. It is because of how the affairs of the company were managed and the operating losses which have arisen that this deficit situation exists.
The Minister's information is not correct nor is it up-to-date. I am reliably informed——
The Deputy must ask a question.
——that the airport is not operating at a loss. The debit is in respect of loans raised for capital development in the initial stages.
The Deputy is not asking a question.
Is the Minister aware of this?
No, I am not so aware.
Has the Minister the audited figures for 1973?
I do not appear to have the accounts for 1973. As far back as 1971 the company's auditors certified as follows: the company's books and records were not properly kept during the year under review and we have been unable to obtain adequate information and explanations in relation to the unsatisfactory results disclosed by the accounts. The auditors referred specifically to deficiencies on bar trading and on aviation fuel. The annual general meeting of the company was reported at length in the local newspaper. As the Deputy is aware, the secretary of the company was reported as stating that when he took up duty he discovered that the affairs of the company were being conducted on a very poor and improper basis. He said that the property and goods of the company were being highly abused and so far as the bar was concerned there appeared to be no control whatsoever.
That is the background to the losses which the company is now seeking to recoup. Having regard to this specific condition under which the original grant was approved and allocation was made, circumstances would not justify the further spending of public money until the conditions are rigidly adhered to.
Is the Minister aware that conditions at the airport have improved substantially during 1972 and 1973 and it is now being operated at a profit? It appears that the Minister's information was not up to date when he made this decision.
The accounts for 1972, which are the latest I have, indicate a loss of £6,250, a loss which, according to the conditions attached to the grant some years ago, is not recoverable.
That is in respect of——
We must pass on to the next question.
——interest on the loan for capital development in the initial stages.
It was accepted by the company as being a normal operating cost.
If the position is unsatisfactory as the Minister has indicated, is he aware that there are steps open to him to enable him to deal with this matter and ensure that people who should not benefit as a result of his action, do not benefit? Does he accept that it is vitally important that this airport be kept open, not only for the benefit of Kerry but for the whole south-west region? He has an obligation to ensure that it is kept open while, I agree, not enabling by his action anybody to benefit who should not benefit.
The Deputy will appreciate that we are dealing with a private company. This is not a State airport.
Yes, but the Minister has certain powers.
Yes, and he is exercising them. Among those powers is not to make public money available when there is evidence that the management of the concern in question is less than satisfactory. On the basis of the most recent figures available to my Department, there is a continuing loss and the original grant was made on condition that the State would not be asked to bear any part of the operating losses. The original project was offered on the basis of its being a viable proposition which would not require continuing State aid. If circumstances have arisen since which have led to losses, when steps are taken to correct that situation, then it will be time to have another look at the situation.
Question No. 33.
A Ceann Comhairle——
I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude. This must be his final supplementary.
With your permission, I propose to raise the subject-matter of this question on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.