Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 May 1969

Vol. 66 No. 12

Shipping Investment Grants Bill, 1968 (Certified Money Bill) : Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to provide a statutory basis for the scheme of investment grants for ships which was announced some time ago. The Bill will enable grants to be paid to Irish shipowners in respect of approved capital expenditure incurred on either the provision of new ships or the conversion of existing ships. The level of grants will be up to 25 per cent of the expenditure eligible for grant purposes.

The Bill is designed to help Irish shipowners in the present highly-competitive conditions in the shipping industry. Their main foreign competitors enjoy State aid either by way of outright grants or favourable financing terms for capital investment. For example, Irish shipowners are in direct competition with British shipowners, both on the cross-Channel and deep sea trades and here the lack of State assistance for Irish shipowners assumed more immediate importance with the operation from January, 1966 of a British scheme of investment grants which provides grants for new ships or the conversion of existing ships. Accordingly Irish shipowners sought the introduction of a corresponding scheme of State assistance. The present measure provides for assistance to Irish shipowners on a similar scale to that available to British shipowners.

The Bill covers Irish-owned ships above a certain size operating in the coastal, cross-Channel and foreign trades in competition with foreign ships and engaged on normal shipping operations. Fishing vessels, for which special grants and other financing facilities are available through An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, and tugs, dredgers and other vessels not employed in normal shipping operations, are excluded from the scope of the Bill.

As an island nation we are almost totally dependent on sea transport both for imports and exports and the importance to the general economy of an up-to-date and expanding Irish-owned merchant fleet is obvious. Our economic well-being depends in large measure on the shipping facilities available to us and the national interest demands that as much as possible of the trade to and from this country should be carried in Irish-owned vessels. If some action were not taken now to put Irish shipowners in a comparable position as regards State aid to that of their main competitors, the inevitable result would be that the Irish fleet would contract.

At the very time when tremendous technological advances in the design and construction of vessels are taking place there would be no encouragement to Irish shipowners to take advantage of these various developments which are geared to achieve lower operating costs. The shipping industry also provides an essential service in its own right. While earning considerable amounts of foreign exchange it preserves within the economy a very large part of our shipping transport costs Again, a healthy, thriving shipping industry has a high strategic value in the event of an interruption of international shipping in periods of world crisis.

Sea transport in all its aspects is undergoing a revolution directed at modernising and rationalising the shipping industry and thereby reducing costs. This whole process of modernisation, aimed as it is at reducing unit costs, will, of course, help our export industries and enhance their competitiveness. Modernisation inevitably demands increased investment in new and more efficient ships and equipment. The low level of profitability experienced by shipping companies here and throughout the world for some years past has reduced the resources available for re-investment. Because of the absence of adequate profits, replacement of ageing vessels has had to be deferred. Unfortunately, this deferment undermined the competitive position of the companies concerned because the more modern replacement vessels are much more economic in operation.

The need for modernisation is exemplified by the case of the B & I Company which is replacing its uneconomic passenger vessels by new car-ferry vessels and converting its conventional cargo services to unit load operation. The increasing trend towards bulk carriers and container ships in the deep-sea trade has obliged Irish Shipping Ltd. to consider the reorganisation of its fleet. The company is disposing of a number of its older and less economic vessels and they recently brought into service a 34,000-ton deadweight bulk carrier. In addition, they have on order two 29,000-ton deadweight bulk carriers one of which will be built at Verolme Cork Dockyard.

The technological and other developments referred to are pressing even more heavily on the resources of the smaller companies. It is most important that these smaller companies should be in a position to modernise their fleets and compete more effectively in an industry so largely regulated by the economies of scale. I feel sure that the assistance provided for in this Bill will be particularly advantageous to the smaller Irish shipping companies as a supplement to their investment resources. Because of their inability to finance new tonnage some Irish owners in recent years have sold ships without buying replacements and have been forced to charter foreign vessels. The availability of a grant of 25 per cent of the capital cost should be a very real incentive to replace worn-out vessels and to modernise and re-equip existing vessels where this is practicable.

Depreciation is a heavy item in the operating cost of a vessel and the payment of a grant would reduce the annual depreciation charge by one quarter. Technological advances in ship construction are such that it is now necessary to provide for the full writeoff of the capital cost of a vessel over a much shorter period than heretofore and the relief afforded by a grant should go a long way towards offsetting the shorter economic life of a new vessel. At present the only concession enjoyed by shipowners which might assist them in financing fleet investment is the Shipping Investment Allowance of 40 per cent of the capital costs of a new ship which is available under the income tax code. This allowance is available for offset against profits and is in addition to the normal wear and tear allowance so that over the full life of a ship allowances of 140 per cent of the ship's cost can be offset against profits. In practice, however, this concession has been of little practical value to shipowners because the pretax profits earned by them have been too low. With the introduction of the scheme of investment grants for ships it is proposed to discontinue the special Shipping Investment Allowance of 40 per cent in a case where a grant is paid. This change involves legislative action which will be taken by the Minister for Finance at the next suitable opportunity. Payment of a grant will provide a direct financial benefit for the shipowner and in planning the purchase of a new vessel or the conversion of an existing one he will be able to take account of the grant and to access precisely the effect of the grant in reducing the operating costs of the vessel and in improving the return on his own investment. Up to this Irish shipowners, unlike their counterparts in other sectors of industry, have not had available to them any direct State assistance. This has been a severe handicap in such a capital-intensive industry.

It will be noted that grants will not be payable in respect of the acquisition of second-hand ships. The object of the scheme is to achieve modernisation of the fleet and this can be done only by the introduction of new ships incorporating the latest methods and equipment. The whole object would be defeated by the purchase of second-hand out-dated vessels. I should mention that with the technological developments now taking place in ship construction existing vessels are becoming obsolete more rapidly than heretofore.

The terms of the Bill are largely self-explanatory and call for little comment by way of explanation. The main provision is that a grant of up to 25 per cent of the capital expenditure involved may, under certain conditions, be paid in respect of the acquisition of a new ship or the conversion of an existing ship. Conversion might take the form of, for example, adaptation for carrying containers or change-over from dry cargo to tanker. Significant additions of a capital nature will also be eligible for a grant, for example, replacement of the main propelling machinery or main boilers. Capital expenditure on containers will also, subject to certain conditions, be eligible for grant payment, provided that the containers are related to the purchase or conversion of a ship in respect of which a grant has been approved. In accordance with Section 5 the scheme will be retrospective to 1st April, 1967. This retrospection is designed to offset to some degree the disadvantageous position of Irish shipowners vis-à-vis their British competitors who have benefited from a similar scheme since January, 1966. There is also provision for appropriate penalties for offences under the Bill. These provisions are normal in a Bill of this type. Section 12 (2) provides for the making of an Order to bring the Bill into operation. This provision is necessary because some time will be required following the enactment of this Bill to enable arrangements for the administration of the scheme of grants to be settled.

The cost of the scheme will depend on the response received from the shipowners and in the current year a sum of £2.464m. has been provided in the Vote for my Department. This sum provides for sums which will become due for payment under the retrospective provisions of the Bill. It is not possible to forecast the level of expenditure in future years but it is unlikely to be as high as that for the current year.

The Bill does not confine the payment of grant to cases where the vessel is built or the work is done in this country. Such a restriction would be impracticable because, by reason of the delivery dates required or inability to handle the work, it might not be possible for Irish shipyards to undertake a particular contract. However, I am most anxious that the scheme should benefit the shipbuilding industry here and before approval for the payment of a grant for a ship to be built abroad is given I will require to be satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons why the work cannot be done here.

I am confident that the scheme will result in an increase in the total tonnage on the Irish Register, and will provide a valuable incentive to Irish shipowners to expand and modernise their fleets. Inquiriese made by them of my Department indicate that they are eager to avail of the opportunity which is now being presented to them. The scheme should also result in a more efficient shipping service, with lower unit costs, being available. This should prove particularly beneficial to our export trade on which our economy so heavily depends. Another valuable effect of the new scheme is that it should lead to additional work for the Irish shipbuilding industry. In fact, I can now tell you that the B and I Company ship, which will be eligible for the grant, is now nearing completion at the Verolme Dockyard and work has commenced in that yard for a bulk carrier for Irish Shipping Limited. I recommend the Bill to the House.

On this side of the House we endorse this Bill but I must say in my own case with some qualms. However, before coming to that I should like to ask a question with regard to the timing of the Bill. I gather the Bill is a matter of some considerable urgency in relation to the B and I. First of all, the Bill is retrospective to a date in 1967 and I gather it is going in fact to effect payment to the B and I of grants in relation to the purchase of ships by that company back to two years ago. If it is thought such payment should be made, and one can see the argument for it, why has it taken two years to get to the point of bringing in this legislation so that it has to be retrospective for such a period, which is contrary to normal practice? It is somewhat undesirable that we in this year should have to find capital relating back to an investment which took place even several years ago.

Indeed, if we take the timing of the Bill itself it was introduced in the other House on the 25th March, which is about six or seven weeks ago. I am wondering why it has taken so long to come to us here in view of the urgency involved. The Minister explained the need for this Bill as being related to a competitive situation in other countries. This is a familiar argument. Indeed, there are many aspects of our economy where we find ourselves in competition with other countries, endeavouring to attract or develop industry in some shape or form.

Some of our industrial grants are required not simply to stimulate growth in this country, taken in isolation, but because other countries offer such facilities and we have to compete. If we did not compete and provide at least as good facilities we would not attract new industries. Indeed, in view of some of the natural disadvantages of our rather isolated position we have perhaps to do better than other countries. Nevertheless, the argument is one at which I must look with care. I could not quite follow the Minister's reasoning here where he referred to the fact that in Britain there is a 40 per cent investment allowance. He seemed to be equating this grant to such an allowance, that is to say, the reason given for the Bill is there exists this competitive situation vis-à-vis Britain. For example, Irish shipowners are in direct competition with British shipowners. Then he goes on to mention this 40 per cent investment allowance, the implication being you have to have this 25 per cent grant to put our shipowners in a competitive position with British shipowners. Then, later on, the Minister says we have got in fact an investment grant. I may not be right about the exact figures with regard to Britain.

Perhaps I was reading too quickly for the Senator. The British have been giving a 20 per cent grant and then a 25 per cent grant I think it is now 20 per cent. I was refer ring to our shipping investment allowance, not the British.

I see. I misunderstood the Minister. This is a British grant system similar to what is in the Bill, not a British investment grant.

It is my fault for not following the Minister more carefully. Will the Minister say what in fact is the British investment grant at the moment?

I think it was put back to 20 per cent. Having been 20 per cent and then 25 per cent it is now back to 20 per cent.

I see. So, the difference between their grants and ours is not in fact very great and they can then be fairly equated. That answers my first point. In the Minister's speech in the Dáil he seemed to refer to a British 25 per cent grant in relation to the British Railways car ferry ships and this confused me. Perhaps the 25 per cent being put back to 20 per cent happens.

I am not sure what particular grant the car ferry ships got but they got a grant in 1966 of either 20 per cent or 25 per cent.

My recollection was that the Minister said it was 25 per cent. Anyhow, it is of that order of magnitude so the two can be equated. Now, we have an investment allowance at the moment. The Minister said that this is in practice of little value because of the low profits earned. He said it would be removed at the earliest possible opportunity. Could he be clear about the removal of this allowance? Does it mean the Minister is giving notice now that it will be retrospectively removed from the date this grant is payable, that is back to 1967 or is it going to be the case that people are going to retrospectively get this grant back to 1967 and also have had the investment allowance over the same period up to some future date when they will all be changed? I am not quite clear about the time scale.

I am not sure about negotiations in regard to that.

It is possible that people like the B and I, who bought ships in 1967, could in fact get the grant retrospectively and have had three years investment allowance as well, even in relation to the grant that was paid to them. This is something the Minister might perhaps clear up on a later stage of the Bill if he has not got the information now. While we are agreeable from this side of the House to providing money once, to provide the same money twice for the same purpose is something we would be a little more sceptical about. I would like to be more clear about the purpose of the Bill. I can see it is designed to put us in a competitive position vis-à-vis British shipping but are we seeking here in this Bill to create or preserve the Irish shipping industry from the point of view of employment or balance of payments? I ask those questions because I think it is of some importance to know what we are aiming to do. Perhaps we are aiming to do both but the purpose has not been clearly stated. This affects the question of how we look at the Bill on the Committee stage. If, for example, we are concerned about employment, then one would like to have some assurance that ships which get those grants will, in fact, be manned by Irish crews or that at some stage, when they are no longer manned by Irish crews, the grant or an appropriate portion of it will be repaid.

Is the purpose of the scheme to ensure the employment of Irish people on these ships? Is the purpose a balance of payments one to ensure that shipping services will be provided by Irish ships owned by Irish companies and that the profits are not taken over by external exchanges? We want the Bill drafted to ensure that the companies receiving these grants are Irish-owned companies. Otherwise the Bill could be a channel for exporting capital rather than importing receipts. If we are trying to ensure that the balance of payments position will be improved by carrying goods in our own ships, this purpose would be fulfilled if an Irish-registered company got a grant for a ship and operated that ship from an Irish base, to Great Britain or elsewhere.

If the profits from that company went to shareholders elsewhere, the Irish balance of payments position would not benefit except by collecting a percentage of the profits. We need to know the purpose of the Bill and whether it is designed to ensure employment of Irish-owned ships.

We need to know whether the Bill has a strategic purpose. This is another possibility. We need to ensure that there is a fleet in existence which will be of use to us in time of war. This question has been raised before with regard to Irish Shipping Limited. I have not hitherto heard that there has been any problem in maintaining the level of shipping required for strategic purpose as calculated in the Second Programme document.

If there has not been any difficulty, then the strategic argument for this additional payment does not arise. We need to know the purpose of the Bill and when we know that, we will have to examine the Bill in committee in order to see that the purposes are achieved and no loopholes left for external operators. The Minister should be more explicit on this point. He should mention the purposes of the Bill and the safeguards which will be taken to ensure that its purposes will be carried out and no loopholes left. The profits for the operation of the company could go outside the country.

I do not agree with the criticism of foreigners getting grants for establishing industries in this country.. These concerns are not all as unsuccessful as the Potez concern. Many of them are valuable to our economy. I would be quite happy with any grant system which helped the Irish economy.

I referred to the strategic argument which has been put previously with regard to Irish shipping. I would like to ask the Minister what the latest position is with regard to this matter. There is nothing further in the Third Programme on this subject. In the Second Programme an opportunity was taken to review the tonnage target. Could the Minister tell us how it stands? Have there been any difficulties in achieving this? Mention was made of 250,000 dry tons for Irish shipping. This figure was established arbitrarily. I am not clear on what basis it was established. It was subsequently revised downwards to 200,000 tons.

The Minister will note that the figure of 150,000 tons was mentioned on the grounds that such a fleet, even if one-third were sunk, would provide sufficient tonnage to import all strategic goods which we would require even in the unlikely position that all the Northern Hemisphere had been wiped out and that we had to get all our goods from the Southern Hemisphere. This target was one which Irish shipping had attained. Has Irish shipping any difficulty in maintaining this target? They are having difficulty economically because of adverse trading conditions.

It was recommended that we should have tanker tonnage. It would not be much good to import goods and then to find we are unable to carry them around the country, particularly in view of the dwindling horse population. Have any arrangements been made about acquiring 80,000 tons of tanker space? This figure was mentioned as an important strategic target. Are we working towards this target? This Bill is connected with the desirability of achieving this target and with the object of achieving it. Perhaps the Minister could tell us something about the strategic targets and whether they are related to this Bill. It seems to me that the Bill is more closely related to the position of the B and I Company than to other matters. Perhaps the Minister would tell us about the position of the B and I.

I was in the Dáil quite recently when this question came up in relation to another matter. The competitive position of the B and I vis-à-vis British Railways was discussed. I have been interested in this question since the publication of the Freight Rates Tribunal Report, 1959. I feel that the competitive situation is a matter of great concern to this country. I fully support any decision taken to purchase the B and I. If it had not been done we might have been in the position here where we were at the mercy of British Railways as the only company of importance operating across the Irish Sea. The whole history of freight rate position between Ireland and Britain reflects the B and I position. If we were without State ownership the position might have been so bad that the B and I could not survive. This Bill is useful in so far as it makes a contribution towards putting the B and I on a fully economic footing.

In the Dáil recently reference was made to the decision by British Railways not to provide any more cattle trucks at Birkenhead which puts the B and I at a very marked disadvantage vis-à-vis British Railways who concentrate all their trucks at Holyhead. Such a decision could undermine the Irish company. I regard this as a serious threat to our economy. It is not the first time such a threat has arisen. British Railways operates for the benefit of Britain. There have been occasions when what is in the interests of Britain has not been in the interests of this country. This has happened at various points in our history.

I have the impression that what is in the interest of British Railways is not always in our interest. I recall an occasion about five years ago when there was a proposal by private Irish companies to operate a new shipping service across the southern part of the Irish Sea, to Milford Haven, I think. British Railways intervened and threatened that if such a service were operated they would withdraw shipping services to some parts of Ireland. I seem to recall that the Minister found it necessary to succumb to this threat and the service operated by the Irish companies was suspended.

British Railways may feel they are entitled to use their monopoly of power in this way but I am not happy that on more than one occasion we should have found ourselves at their mercy as far as our economy is concerned. I was not very happy with the reaction of the Government at that time in succumbing to the threat by British Railways and in ordering cancellation of these services. The matter was reported in the newspapers some time afterwards; it is public knowledge and should be a matter of public concern.

We now find ourselves, four or five years later, in the position that the B and I Company, having been safeguarded from being run into the ground or taken over by British Railways, finds it is prevented from operating competitively by the exercise of the monopoly of power by British Railways in relation to services within Britain to divert the maximum cattle trade through British Railways. British Railways seem to be doing more in the cattle business and, as was stated recently in the Dáil, the B and I are in a position where the decline in cattle business has made it necessary for them to increase their rates. They tried to win back business by reducing their rates but they failed and they have now had to increase their charges. That is not in the interest of the Irish economy. I do not fault B and I for their action. It is their job to run a commercial undertaking and by turning this into a social service it would become demoralised as has happened in other State enterprises in the past when Government interference prevented them from operating commercially. The decision taken in this instance was the right one; the B and I Company should not be forced to run at a loss.

The Government might consider it desirable to assist them to compete in the interests of the Irish cattle trade, but that is a matter for the Government, not for the B and I Company. That a situation should arise where a monopoly of power exercised within Britain should undermine an Irish State shipping company to the extent that business is diverted, its rates forced up and our cattle trade affected is surely a matter for concern. Listening to the debate in the other House I was not happy that this matter was being dealt with in a serious manner but it may be that much more is happening behind the scenes than the various Ministers could disclose.

Replying to a Dáil question by Deputy Dillon as to whether any representations had been made to the Board of Trade on this matter, the Minister for Agriculture evaded the question and kept talking about having chats with the British Minister for Agriculture. My understanding of the British Government system does not lead me to believe that the Minister for Agriculture has anything to do with British Railways and it appears someone has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The question of the cattle trade is something which concerns the British Minister for Agriculture; the question of British Railways and its impact on the Irish State and cross-Channel shipping companies is the concern of the Board of Trade and I hope that this matter is being taken up with that body.

One way in which this country remains most vulnerable to British pressure is the fact that the company operating services across the Irish Sea controls all the rail services and many of the road services in Britain. This has been a threat to our economy for many years past and no new reading of the Report of the Freight Rates Tribunal, 1959, can leave one in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation. This was the reason which precipitated the Government into purchasing the B and I but I cannot accept that this decision, which was intended to ensure competition, should be frustrated by the British Government monopoly, and if this is persisted in I would regard it as an unfriendly act of a kind inappropriate between two friendly countries. Perhaps I am attaching too much gravity to this but I have been concerned about this matter for the past 10 years and we are now reaching the point where some fairly drastic action is required.

This Bill is designed to help the B and I Company which has been required to carry out modernisation and development of its services which had not been adequately developed under the previous management. Without assistance of any capital injection from the Exchequer other than the original price paid for the purchase of the ships, the job done by the B and I has been a remarkable one. This Bill will provide them with some capital assistance not directed particularly towards subsidising them and it is to be welcomed.

In the debate in the other House there was discussion on the question of tramp shipping. A complaint was made that Irish shipping and many of its services are engaged in tramp shipping throughout the world and are not primarily concerned with bringing goods to and from Ireland. There was a suggestion that in this way Irish shipping were letting the side down and not pulling their weight in contributing to the economy. In reply the Minister made the point, which I endorse, that these activities are of great value to the economy in that they are a source of invisible earnings, in the receipt of foreign currency earned by Irish ships and Irish crews on the high seas, in order to provide us with the foreign currency we need to buy goods and services. I do not think it would be a fair criticism of this Bill that it might be used to provide additional free capital to Irish shipping in order to operate ships between, say, Japan and the west coast of America, but if it has that effect I would welcome it because for operations of this kind we receive dollars and yens and it also gives employment to Irish crews. It is, therefore, doubly beneficial to this country, and is a point worth making in view of the criticisms made.

A point was made that Irish shipping should operate additional services between Ireland and other countries for which there is a demand. If they have failed to do this and other countries are providing the service that is a different matter, but I have not heard that case made. The mere fact that their services operate very largely as tramp ships between other countries to earn foreign currency is not an argument against Irish shipping vessels receiving the benefit of grants under the Bill. It is important we should be assured that the benefits of the injection of free capital which this Bill requires us to make to Irish shipping services will accrue to this country either in the form of foreign exchange earnings or in the from of the employment it secures for our people.

On a point of detail I do not think the Bill makes provision for these grants being applied to containers. Perhaps the Minister would say more about this because it seems to introduce a new principle. I accept that a modern shipping service will in many cases have to be a container service. That means that the shipping company must provide containers. Nonetheless one would like to know what limits there are on this question of providing containers. It could be a little openended—I do not mean the containers should be open-ended, but the provisions could be somewhat open-ended. We do not want to find ourselves with a Shipping Bill which finances the provision of containers for all kinds of industry on either side of the Irish Sea or indeed the Atlantic Ocean.

I am sure the Minister is conscious of this and intends that the Bill will be so operated that the financing of the containers will be limited to that which is necessary and appropriate to the shipping services which the Bill is primarily intended to provide, but I would like to hear how he means to secure that. I would also like to ask him in relation to the sum of £2.4 million which the Bill is providing for in the first instance in the form of injections of capital how much of this sum will accrue to the B and I, and how much to Irish Shipping and to other companies. We are entitled to know this, and in fact there will be no secret about this, because the balance sheets of the companies will be published in due course and the information will be obtainable there, but we should be entitled in relation to this sum which is already earmarked to know about its distribution between these two Irish companies and other shipping companies.

These are the points which I should like to raise at this stage, though there may be points which I will take up on the Committee Stage.

Professor Quinlan rose.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is an understanding that the business of the House would conclude at 6.30. There is also an understanding that this Bill will be disposed of this evening.

I wish to say only a few brief things on the Bill. We all welcome it in so far as if we are in any competitive business we have to match our competitors, but there are a few items which I would like to raise. I do not think I can be as complacent as Senator FitzGerald on the question of tramp steamers. I would like to see hard facts and figures as to the amount of actual foreign currency those tramp steamers earn, and also the opposite account of the amount of foreign currency that the provision of the tramp steamers calls for by way of capital.

Secondly, I should like to see balanced against that what is our foreign currency situation. Is it so critical that we cannot raise the same amount by other methods? To me it seems that life in a tramp steamer is about the most undesirable type of life we can create for our people. Family men are away from home for six or nine months at a time. There might be certain monetary compensations involved but certainly it is far from the ideal type of employment, and any shore-based activity would seem to be preferable. On the other hand if the steamers were mainly plying to and from Irish ports that is a different thing altogether. We would be playing a part in carrying imports in our own ships.

I raise a very big question mark over this Bill in regard to tramp steamers and further investment in them. I certainly would not like to see that done without very much greater scrutiny and a very much deeper questioning of the figures involved. Nothing can be more misleading than when we are told that the service is operating at a loss, because it is just a question of playing with figures from one side of the ledger to another. The amount of loss produced depends on how you allocate your overheads. You can have rules for allocating these, but the only hard test you can apply is, if this service ceases can the company carry on, or would it then lose money, which is a totally different thing. I would appeal for closer scrutiny of this aspect.

There is also this question of the B and I where it is said that they have ordered two 29,000-ton deadweight bulk carriers one of which will be built at Verolme Dockyard in Cork. I am not very much impressed by one. I would have thought that in such a marginal type of activity one of the major decisions would be that the building was being done at home. I do not see that the pressure on the building of those vessels can be so great that the second one could not afford to wait six or nine months until one of our yards was free to do the job. We must look at this point, that we have this question of operating at a profit, a type of slide rule exercise, that can be most misleading, because in this case a company like the B and I or another is largely charged with buying something at the lowest price, but it is the community that is paying for it, and if you take the building of a ship the added value in the yard would probably amount to 25 or 30 per cent of the total cost.

That added value creates wealth that is spent by the workers engaged in that enterprise. It goes into our economy, and it deposits taxes from the taxes on the pint and every other tax such as on petrol and so on. It deposits into the Exchequer anything up to 40 per cent of the value that has been added, in other words ten or 12 per cent. Therefore it would seem that apart from creating employment here at home the State would actually not lose even if ten or 12 per cent more had to be paid for having a ship built at home, or indeed any other article built at home rather than abroad.

I am always worried about this insistence on profit especially in semi-State companies. We do not seem to allow for the added value to the Irish economy in having the job done at home. Therefore not being bound in these cases by the lowest tender we should be able to adjust our price so as to take account of the benefit conferred on the Irish economy by it. In some cases, especially shipbuilding, one or two per cent on a tender can make all the difference. We should look at the overall co-ordination especially when we introduce a Bill in the Seanad and get it through in under an hour, involving expenditure of £2½ million in the year and probably continuing at nearly that figure over the following years. The question is, are we scrutinising it closely enough? Have we the machinery in Parliament or in Government to ensure that this expenditure is co-ordinated and that the work as much as possible is done at home so as to confer within proper economic limits the maximum benefits on our economy?

Some of the questions asked ought to be dealt with on the Committee Stage. The Bill was delayed because the clauses of it had to be examined very carefully and it had to take its position in the queue of Bills in the Dáil. Shipping companies have not been making such profits that would make the investment allowance concession any use to them. The question of when the investment allowance ceases in relation to these grants will be decided by the Department of Finance, who I do not think will ever be over-generous in this matter. It can be taken for granted that they will be co-ordinated.

Senator FitzGerald asks the general purpose underlying these grants. There is the helpful purpose of providing grants for shipping companies giving employment which is of some importance—19,000 people employed by the B and I and Irish Shipping and a further number employed by smaller shipping companies. We are putting our shipping services in competition with others of the very highest calibre and setting an example of productivity and charging the very lowest rates possible consistent with earning a profit. Then there is the strategic element that enters into operations of Irish Shipping plus the fact that they earn very valuaable foreign currency and fly our flag abroad and have a splendid reputation for punctuality and good performance. These are the main reasons why we want to have these important shipping companies maintain their position and modernise their ships.

Under the Bill, an Irish body corporate can apply for a grant and that body corporate might well be controlled by foreign interests. We will take very great care when providing conditions for grants to foreign companies who might take away the revenue of the company in a way that would be of no advantage to us. However, it is not likely that any such company would apply.

Equally, there are provisions in the Bill that they will have to repay the grant if the ships have been sold before a certain period had elapsed. We have also provision in the conditions for the fact that an Irish or foreign company cannot charter a ship for a single voyage without stating what the purpose of the charter is and they will not be allowed to charter a vessel for which grants have been given on the basis that the vessel will gradually be purchased by a foreign concern. We are able to regulate against the misuse of a grant from a national viewpoint. We can do this by conditions under section 2.

Senator FitzGerald asked me about the position of the B and I. The B and I were able to raise a large amount of capital without any State guarantee because they provided excellent market research and were able to present a very good statement of profits and receipts in the most advanced form. Their three new car-ferry vessels, I believe, will be profitable. The bookings for them are excellent. The company are carrying more and more freight by their container services which in future will be owned by the company. The B and I lost money last year. They lost heavily because of the shipping strike and because of the outbreak of the foot and mouth epidemic.

Senator FitzGerald asked also about the position with regard to cattle shipping. The B and I are in the unfortunate position that at Birkenhead there are no rail wagons. As a result, they have lost a good deal of the trade to British Railways. It is their duty to provide a service of vessels to fulfil the need and to provide a service that will always be there in case anything should happen as a result of the deterioration in the British rail service. The straight answer to the Senator is that the matter is the subject of continuous negotiations by the Minister for Agriculture who, in actual fact, conducts negotiations in relation to the shipping of cattle.

The B and I have raised their freight rate by 10/- representing the restoration of the freight rate that was reduced in April last and by another 6/-so that their losses this year, I think, will not be excessive and I am hoping that their financial position will improve steadily. I see no reason why it should not.

The Minister tells us that it is the Minister for Agriculture who is negotiating with regard to the shipping of cattle but surely these are matters for the Board of Trade and the Department of Transport and Power?

When it comes to hard bargaining about shipping large numbers of cattle it is the Minister for Agriculture who has always done that and he keeps in touch with us.

The question of the shipment of cattle is only incidental to this. Surely the issue at stake is far more serious and warrants discussion at the highest level with the Board of Trade?

My Department have had long and continuous discussions with the Department of Agriculture on this matter and the Department of Agriculture do it because they are so much concerned with the movement of cattle.

It is the long-term position of Irish shipping services that I am concerned about. The Minister's reaction would seem to confirm that there is a degree of complacency.

There is no complacency. I have given the Minister for Agriculture all the ammunition he needs as far as I am concerned.

It seems to me that the Department of Agriculture are conducting a type of independent Irish Government on their own.

That is not the case at all.

The Minister for Transport and Power is passing the buck to the Minister for Agriculture.

It has always been the case that the Minister for Agriculture dealt with matters relating to the shipping of cattle.

The Minister will accept that he would be more capable of dealing with the matter than the Minister for Agriculture.

I do not agree at all.

The Senators opposite have chips on their shoulders.

Senator Quinlan spoke of sea life as being an undesirable life for people. There always has been sea life and certain people seem to like it very much. I cannot go into the merits or demerits of sea life but I can only say that certain people enjoy this sort of life. Irish Shipping looks after its people very well. Remuneration is satisfactory and people are flown home on relief when the occasion demands.

As far as subsidies are concerned I can assure Senator Quinlan that Verolme did not lose any order that they should have got. As the Senator well knows there is an appropriate subsidy paid to Verolme for the ships that are built by the State. Two of the B and I ships had to be built abroad because of the extreme urgency of constructing the three car-ferry vessels to meet the explosion in the car-ferry business which began about a year after B and I was purchased and made into an Irish State company. I think I have answered all the questions at this stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Is there any objection to taking the remaining Stages now?

The Chair understood that the House agreed to take all Stages of this Bill this evening.

That is probably correct but we should like an opportunity of considering it in more detail. I do not wish to press the matter but if we could leave it over until the next sitting day it would not take very long, perhaps an hour or so.

It is very important that this Bill would pass through all Stages today because of the need for financing the B and I Steampacket Company and, in particular, because a great deal of the Bill depends on the conditions that attach to grants. I have explained those to the House.

There are certain aspects of the Bill that I should like to go into further.

The Bill should not be bulldozed through.

Is it agreed we take the Committee Stage now?

The agreement was that we would complete all Stages of this Bill today.

It is a matter for the House. The question is whether we take the Committee Stage of the Bill now? I should like to ask the Leader of the House would it be possible to provide an hour the next day to deal with it and, if so, could the Minister wait a week?

The position is that this is a Money Bill and the money is required urgently. Everybody is weeping tears about wanting to help Irish industry and Irish shipping. If we postponed it for another week there is no guarantee how many hours it would take with the brainwaves Senators get from time to time.

He said one hour.

Senator Quinlan has not got his wind yet.

We are voting to spend at least £2½ million and I think at least we should devote another hour to it.

The Chair is concerned with the wishes of the House. Does the House wish to insist on the arrangement come to today?

On a point of order, I understand we reached two arrangements. One was to stop at half past six. If we are to stick to that, the other one is ruled out.

The Chair understood that this Bill would be disposed of this evening because there is a certain urgency about it.

The truth is that when the Leader of the House put this to me I was thinking in terms of the Second Stage. I realise he meant all Stages and it is my fault that I misunderstood him. That is why I am reluctant to press the matter further. If we are to consider this in Committee now could we have a few minutes to go over the Bill in the light of the discussion we have had?

Just to read through it?

A few minutes to read through it before we go into Committee. Is that possible?

I object to this Bill being bulldozed through the House.

How many minutes?

Just three or four minutes.

We will take the Committee Stage in a few minutes.

Thank you. I am sorry.

Top
Share