asked the Minister for Communications his plans for the financing of a new Aer Lingus fleet.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Aer Lingus Fleet.
1.
As indicated in my reply to Deputy Vincent Brady on the subject on 2 July last Aer Lingus are currently addressing the issue of replacement of shorthaul jet aircraft used on cross-Channel and continental routes. For some time the airline have been engaged in a detailed study to develop a fleet replacement strategy. I understand that certain aspects of the study have now reached an advanced stage and that Aer Lingus will be submitting detailed proposals very shortly.
Has the Minister adopted a different attitude towards the financing of the Aer Lingus fleet from the one he showed when he indicated that they would have to finance their new fleet totally from their own funds?
What I have said repeatedly and stand by is that I am determined to ensure that the State companies for which I am responsible call on the taxpayers to the least extent possible, and that goes for Aer Lingus as well as the other companies. The policies we are pursuing seem to be working.
Does the Minister think from the reports of the profits made by Aer Lingus that they are in an increasingly better position to finance their fleet?
It is encouraging that Aer Lingus have been in profit for the past three years and that each year has shown a growth in profits. I expect that this year, which will end on 31 March 1986, will show a further growth in profit but as Aer Lingus have said repeatedly, the profit is not nearly at a level which would generate the sort of funding which will be required for fleet replacement. In this context, and relating only to short haul European routes, the sort of figures we are talking about are between £500 million and £700 million. It is clear that, in the interest not only of the country but of everybody in Aer Lingus, the profits already achieved should be greatly increased in the future but there is no room for complacency.
Would the fact that the profit news is increasingly optimistic help the Minister to give an assurance either by way of equity or State guarantee of loans that he will see to it that Aer Lingus do not fall down on re-equipping their fleet?
The Deputy can be assured that the Government and I will do what is in the public interest, but one of the objectives I have set for all the companies under my command is that they should aim to operate as private companies, as if they did not have the Exchequer to fall back on. That is a reasonable objective. For too long we have allowed a number of State companies to feel that "Uncle Alan", or "Uncle George" or "Uncle Charlie", is there to give them money, but the State cannot continue to give out money. The message has to be got across to the State sector that money will be spent only if it is absolutely justifiable. Anyone investing in a comany expects a return on their investment, and for too long the State has been injecting equity in companies with no possibility of return, never mind expectation.
If the Minister examines the records he will find that was my policy too.
I accept what the Deputy said.
This is the last supplementary question.
Is the Minister aware of the difficulties experienced by Aer Lingus on the North Atlantic route and that the downstream benefits to this country by supporting Aer Lingus on that route are so immense——
That is another question.
——that I appeal to the Minister to make increased provision for re-equipping——
That is another question. I appeal to Deputy Leyden to confine his supplementaries to the question.
This is not another question. I take issue with you on this.
The Deputy will not take issue with the Chair. You will obey the Chair.
You said you did not interfere with Question Time. I asked the Minister a question and he should be allowed to reply.
I am ruling the question out of order. The Deputy may not have been here when we decided that progress would have to be made at Question Time and when the Chair was criticised for not taking drastic measures to get on with the work.
I am making a reasonable offer——
I am calling Question No. 2.
I have asked a reasonable supplementary question which you allowed. The Minister is willing to respond but you are objecting to that and that is——
I am ruling out your question and calling Question No. 2.
I do not think you have any right to rule out my question which is in order. I object to your ruling.