I was coming in from Ringsend in the past three days and I noticed what I believed — and I am not a technically minded person — to be a new bus, not a Bombardier bus, on that route. Is there a new bus on test in that area and, if so, why? Is there a problem with the new double decker Bombardier bus? I am not aware of it I heard rumours recently. Would the Minister confirm whether there is a new bus on test on that route? It appeared to be a new type of bus.
I have heard accusations many times in this House about the lack of capital for CIE. I am glad that in my short time as Minister for Transport that accusation did not stand up. It has not been made by the Minister, but it was made by many of his cohorts. This year we provided capital to the tune of £49½ million for a new bus fleet, for electrification and for many other improvements on the railways.
I should like the Minister to tell us how he followed up the recommendations in relation to the Buttevant railway crash. Have the recommendations been implemented? If not, why not? Will they be implemented? If some of them are not to be implemented, the general public and the House should be made aware of why they will not be implemented.
The savings made under the various subheads were not detailed. I see there were savings on subhead O. Where are those savings? The Minister and I have a personal interest in an amount of approximately £200,000 which was included in a Supplementary Estimate last June for the further development of the Abbey-shrule air strip. If that money has not been spent this year, perhaps the Minister can tell me whether it will be spent next year.
I also recall a figure of approximately £150,000 for Farranfore Airport development to enable it to take its place in the network of regional airports which we were glad to initiate when we were in Government. They can contribute very usefully to the regional development policy we were pursuing.
As we all know, Farranfore serves an area which demands long journeys for executives to get either to our capital city or to export markets. I understood that, in consultation with a private air company, they would be very willing to provide a regular air service from Farranfore to Dublin at no cost to the Exchequer. I notice an additional amount here also for the air service to Derry, initiated in my time as Minister. I want to make it clear that while £1,000 was included under that subhead it was done deliberately for the reason that negotiations were proceeding with various companies and tenders had been invited for the operation of this service. Had the figure of the estimated cost of this been included in the Estimates it would be clearly seen from the debate in this House and outside operators would know exactly what we had in mind for its subsidisation. We all know that in a commercial situation — especially in regard to a figure coming from the Exchequer — that is the figure for which everybody will look. I am sure the Minister and his officials fully appreciate the reasons behind that. Everybody was aware of them at the time.
I come now to another figure included under subhead O in relation to the Connacht regional airport. My colleague, Deputy Flynn, will have an opportunity to add his words in support of this project. There has been a very sinister propaganda campaign to knock this project from day one. I accept that the Government of the day have every right to change their minds about any project to which they feel they are not committed or which should not be proceeded with. But they stand indicted on the sequence of events in relation to this project. On 15 September 1980 this project was approved in principle when no voices of objection or concern were raised, good, bad or indifferent. In the Estimates for 1981 a new subhead, Subhead O was created in the Department of Transport Estimates to provide for the initial expenditure on this project. Everybody will recall and accept that all the various planning had not been done at that point. A reasonable figure was put on the project because nobody really knew how far it would be advanced during the year. Subsequent events have illustrated that this project received early approval. Indeed on 2 May I announced the Government decision for a 6,000 foot runway at a cost of approximately £8 million — this part of it is very important — at 1980 prices, a factor that has been ignored by everybody, especially those who tried to present a wrong picture in relation to this project. I repeat, at 1980 prices, it was estimated to cost £8 million. It was obvious then that work was proceeding fairly quickly. Consequently a Supplementary Estimate was prepared of £2.2 million and the Government of which I was a Member approved that Supplementary Estimate. This Government, on their first day in business — and I sat on this side of the House watching — allowed that Supplementary Estimate pass through this House unanimously, not a single word being raised in objection to the expenditure of the £2.2 million.
We all know the promises and commitments made during an election campaign. I have already recognised that the government of the day always are entitled to change their minds. But, having waited until September until a spokesman was found to hoist the banner and flag against this project and to give out selective information — I say selective because that is what he used — to denigrate this project from day one is not good enough. The Minister himself did not take part in those deliberations but selective information and propaganda were used in relation to this project. Then we had the hatchet finally fall when the Government themselves admitted that £6 million had now been committed to the project. I ask this House: is it not wilful neglect and wastage of public money to have waited until Thursday evening last to decide that they were not now in favour of that project? Everybody was in favour of it earlier this year during the general election campaign, and if the government of the day had any misgivings about this project it was their responsibility to stop it before £6 million were spent.
I want to come now to the final scenario in this respect — the Government said that it can be left there to be continued perhaps at a later date. It is quite clear that the Government have abandoned this project. In so doing I want to ask them and get a direct answer: have they carried out an assessment of the money spent, have their technical advisers informed them that this project cannot be left in its present state because weather conditions will totally dissipate the gravel compounded on the site? Furthermore if at any stage in the future this project is to be taken up again it will have to be started practically from scratch, from day one. All of this means that one will wind up with a gross misuse of public money, no proper assessment having been carried out before the decision to call a halt. If that runway is not sealed against weather conditions my information, not alone from the technical advisers on the site but from independent technical advisers, is that it cannot be left in that state or else, as some pressman has said, it will be a runway to nowhere. In my view the Government stand indicted in relation to a project costing £6 million already. They must have had doubts in their minds despite the fact that they hung out a poor Minister for the Gaeltacht to dry time and time again by allowing him make public announcements. When he spoke undoubtedly he had to do so with full knowledge of the commitment to collective Cabinet responsibility. At the same time it entailed the wastage of £6 million of public money. I should like to hear an explanation. I know that Deputy Flynn will go into this in more detail.
The Department of Transport have a number of semi-State bodies under their control, one being Aer Lingus. I endeavoured to get a question on the Order Paper in relation to whether or not the Government had decided to take up more equity in Aer Lingus and, if so, what amount. Perhaps the Minister would avail of this opportunity to inform us whether the Government have reached such a decision. We are aware that legislation must be introduced to provide for more equity. We are reaching the end of the calendar year and, if such a decision has been taken, we have not any knowledge of it. We would be most interested to know. It is interesting to note that events following on the July budget demonstrate that the Department of Finance now accept — as has been confirmed by Paul Tansey, a commentator in The Irish Times— that £132 million did not constitute savings at all but rather were transferred for decision next year. I have held the view, and said here on the Financial debate, that the figures did not add up at all. Quite clearly they did not because the Department of Finance now accept — and one can read this in a contribution of Paul Tansey in The Irish Times— that those figures were transferred for decision to next year. That is the type of information being poured out from time to time. As time goes on the true facts of the situation emerge, and they are not as was represented back in June or July. The figures I have been asking to be quantified have never been quantified, and here is another one affecting the present situation.
We are aware that the B & I have experienced a difficult year. We are aware of the price war existing across the Irish Sea. I noticed recently that Sealink was going to be sold to another ferries operator. I wonder if the Minister followed up my earlier discussions with the then British Minister for Transport, Mr. Norman Fowler MP when I went over to London and expressed our interest in taking a share of Sealink if it were to come on the market. He was not then able to tell me what the Government might decide in relation to it. Perhaps the Minister would tell me if that move was followed up and if so, whether they decided that Sealink was of no further interest to us notwithstanding the fact that it is a vital link between Ireland and England. The fear is that if it goes into other hands our interests may not be fully protected. I have no doubt but that the B & I at the time would have been interested to have a stake in it. In that way they would be fully aware of what the future might hold in regard to these services or any changes to be made in them.
Irish Shipping Limited are an excellent semi-State body doing an excellent job worthy of compliment. I am glad to note that they have engaged in negotiations on the possibility of operating the P & O service, or the now non-existent P & O ferry service, from Belfast to Liverpool. I expressed that view some months ago. I hope they will be successful because it will demonstrate to the people in the North of Ireland that we are serious when we say we want to improve economic co-operation and economic links between the two parts of Ireland. As I said at the time, this was an area where the Government could demonstrate their good faith. I hope the negotiations are successful and that the Irish Shipping flag, run as it is always on sound commercial lines, will be able to take up the ferry service from Belfast to Liverpool. It would prove to the people in the North that we are serious when we say we will give them our economic co-operation in whatever way possible.
It has been a difficult year for tourist traffic and international travel. Nevertheless, I look forward to Aer Rianta having a successful year, much more successful than last year. Shannon Airport has been used as a reason for not proceeding with the Connacht regional airport. Everyone looks at the two years when the downturn came but nobody wants to do a decent analysis of the performance of Aer Rianta and Shannon Airport in the past 15 years.
Circumstances changed for Shannon Airport in 1978. I took steps, and I know the Minister will proceed on the same lines, to develop new sources of business for the airport. That is the way forward. The Aeroflot installation is proving even more successful than was originally thought and it will bring additional business. Other projects are in the pipeline and we hope they will be attracted to Shannon. I mention the Federal Express project which would be a boon to Shannon, and there is also the pre-clearance project. I know the Minister has had the report for some time on where the balance of advantage lies, with Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta naturally making their own arguments in relation to the US Customs pre-clearance project. I do not know what is in the report. Perhaps there is a valid reason for the Minister not to disclose what is in it but it is my view that we are entitled to know. That project would be a major boost to the economic development of Shannon and would bring it back to the good old days when it did solid business which some people apparently now want to forget. We know of the faint-hearted people who were around when Shannon Airport was first being considered. At the time it was said by people of the same philosophy who knocked the Connacht regional airport that "it will be a rabbit park for Rineanna". When one considers what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years, can anyone say these people were right in their criticism? If we had not men of courage to take such decisions, there would not have been any development at Shannon or in the mid-west region. If the Minister has the courage to take the same action with regard to the Connacht regional airport, in 20 years time he will be seen to have made the right decision. Our approach has always been that the Connacht regional airport would be an instrument of regional development that would bring better communications to the area. We all know that there will not be a proper road network in the west in our time because the hundreds of millions of pounds necessary for such infrastructure will not be available. The spending of £12 million would have been a morale boost to business people in the west.
I refer the Minister to the NESC Report No. 59 which drew attention to this fact. As a result of a field test, it emerged that one of the greatest obstacles was for executives to get to the international export markets as quickly as possible. They put that factor on a par with good telecommunications. In the past two weeks the EEC Commission warned the Government that they should be very selective in their cuts in public expenditure and not to have such cuts that would hinder the development of the less well-off regions. The decision last Thursday night flies in the face of the warnings of the EEC Commission——