Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Jul 1969

Vol. 66 No. 16

Air Companies (Amendment) Bill, 1969 (Certified Money Bill) : Second Stage.

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

The purposes of this Bill are:—

(i) to empower the Minister for Finance to take up additional shares in Aerlínte Éireann Teoranta to the amount of £10 million;

(ii) to empower the Minister for Finance to make further payments for capital purposes to Aerlínte, not exceeding £5 million; and

(iii) to increase to a total of £50 million the limit of money which Aerlínte and Aer Lingus, between them, may borrow under the guarantee of the Minister for Finance.

Since the enactment of the Air Companies Act, 1966 there has been no statutory provision for further investment in the airlines by the State. That statutory provision was replaced by the 1966 Act in the light of a decision reached some years earlier that at that time the Companies could be regarded as having reached a stage where they should be able to finance further normal growth from revenue and commercial borrowing.

This view has had to be modified in the light of a number of new factors. There has been sharp growth in the transatlantic traffic. The pace of technological change leading to the introduction of faster and larger aircraft and intensified international competition have brought about the need for further substantial capital investment in new aircraft and equipment. The air companies in common with other carriers on their routes have to face the effects of the rapid pace of technological change and intensified competition. Once newer and more profitable aircraft types are introduced on a particular route by one airline its competitors have no option but to re-equip themselves in like manner unless they are prepared to accept a declining share of the traffic, reduced profitability and, ultimately, a cut-back in the employment of staff.

The growth in air traffic is expected to continue and the air companies have made forecasts of the traffic they expect to cater for over the next five years. These forecasts show an increase in passenger numbers from 1,372,000 in 1967-68 to 2,163,000 in 1972-73. Over the same period revenue is estimated to increase from £24 million to £46 million. This period will also see the introduction on the Atlantic of the Boeing 747 jets. To maintain this momentum and to secure the forecasted increase in traffic and revenue in this dynamic industry the air companies must acquire the necessary new aircraft and ancillary equipment.

The five year programme for capital re-equipment by Aer Lingus and Aerlínte up to 1973 includes the acquisition of eight Boeing 737 jets for Aer Lingus, one Boeing 320 jet and two Boeing 747 (Jumbo) jets for Aerlínte. The originally estimated cost of these aircraft has escalated and has also been affected by the sterling devaluation of November, 1967. The companies' total capital outlay for the five year period is estimated at £71.5 million. The companies are satisfied that this heavy investment would yield a satisfactory commercial return but the sheer amount involved created serious difficulties for them. They undertook a close study of the financial aspects of the proposals in consultation with three leading international bankers.

They were advised that to service commercial loan capital on this scale would, because of the burden of interest and capital repayments, be beyond the capacity of an airline of their size. Furthermore, if the companies were to rely solely on borrowing and on their own resources, the high proportion of their capital which would then be in the form of loan capital, would tend to worsen future prospects of borrowing. It was considered that the only satisfactory solution was to reshape the capital structures of the companies so as to increase the proportion of equity to loan capital.

This conclusion was reached independently by the companies and by their consultant bankers. The air companies were satisfied that of the total of £71.5 million required, they could, over the five years, find £28.8 million from their own resources, namely depreciation reserves and accumulated profits. They also, considered, with the concurrence of their advisers, that they could prudently borrow a further £28 million. This left the balance of £15 million which the companies proposed should be provided in the form of equity by the State. Following detailed joint study by the companies and by the Departments of Finance and Transport and Power, the Government decided that the Minister for Finance should provide to the companies a further £10 million share capital and a further £5 million in the form of non-repayable interest bearing advances.

The £5 million non-repayable sum is a permanent capital investment but is neither equity nor preference capital. Interest will be a charge against revenue and not profits. It is the intention to require payment of interest at a rate equivalent to the cost of borrowing to the Exchequer. Thus the company will be relieved of the burden of repayment but the Exchequer will have an assurance of interest payments.

The £10 million equity is risk capital and any dividends payable on it must come from profits and be dependent on their being earned. The airlines expect to earn profits which will enable them to pay some dividends on this new equity by 1972-73 but the rate of dividend will, of course, have to be struck each year in the light of the companies' earning position and commercial prospects.

The £15 million is a new capital contribution by the State. The air companies will borrow this sum in the first place from sources not normally available to the Exchequer and this borrowing will be taken over by the Exchequer to finance the new investment. Thus the amount available to finance the Government capital programme will be increased; the companies will secure the long-term capital injection they need and distortion of their balance sheets will be avoided.

The proposed further State capital contributions are an investment in an outstanding growth industry. Apart from any direct return account must be taken of the very substantial indirect return from our investment in the companies which play a key role in the development of tourism, in the provision of highly skilled employment and in the development of technological and management skills. The air companies are one of our major growth businesses whose continued welfare remains a major concern of the Government.

During the past ten years the joint revenue of the air companies has increased from £4.8 million to £24 million, an increase of 400 per cent. Passenger traffic has increased from 515,000 to 1,372,000 an increase of 166 per cent and employment has increased from 2,000 to 5,000 approximately. The companies have been operating profitably for many years but their profits have been re-invested in growth rather than distributed as cash dividends and the State's investment of £13.6 million shows a growth of £4 million as at 31st March, 1968.

The bulk of the profits made by the companies have derived from the transatlantic operations of Aerlínte. Short haul operations of the type carried on by Aer Lingus are everywhere marginally profitable but the Aer Lingus network plays an essential role in our national economy by virtue of its services to tourism, to business and as a feeder to Aerlínte's profitable transatlantic routes.

The value of the airlines to the national economy was recently the subject of a study commissioned by them from distinguished consultants. The study shows that the total return to the community after the most realistic possible estimation of the indirect and social benefits accruing from the activities of the airlines but not susceptible of precise measurement in money terms, is certainly not less than 11 per cent and possibly as much as 26 per cent on the total capital investment.

Some interesting points which emerge from the study were that the airlines earned 70 per cent of their revenue from outside of Ireland while only 45 per cent of their expenditure was incurred outside the country leaving a substantial favourable balance. It was also reckoned that in the absence of our own national airlines up to £1.6 million annually would have left the country by way of fares to foreign carriers. The net contribution of the airlines to our foreign earning was in the order of £6.4 million per annum. The five year programme, the financing of which this Bill deals with, will see the companies expand into a new and greatly increased level of activities.

They will, by Irish standards, be very big business indeed. It would be unwise, however, to believe that either the aviation industry generally or our own airlines will be able to relax after 1973. The pace of technological progress continues to increase. There are prospects of even larger jets than the Boeing 747 and supersonic jets are just around the corner.

Because of the magnitude of the capital outlay which the expansion of the air companies is likely to involve in future years the Government have, therefore, decided to carry out a thorough review of the position before the end of the present programme. The companies are planning to undertake in 1970-71 a review in depth of their capital programmes and commercial prospects and will engage specialised consultants, as necessary, to assist them in doing so. I should avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the boards and staffs of the air companies on the success the companies have achieved to date. I have every confidence that this success will be maintained and that the companies will reach and surpass the difficult commercial targets which they have set themselves. I consider that the investments we are now making will be put to good use and that they will yield returns both direct and indirect which will be of crucial benefit to our economy. I have, therefore, no hesitation in recommending this Bill for the approval of the House.

We agree to this proposal and we consider that it is essential at this stage particularly having regard to the problems of Aerlínte and Aer Lingus that are likely to arise in the near future. I notice that the Minister for Finance intends taking up additional shares with Aerlínte to the extent of £10 million and that future payments for capital purposes amounting to £5 million are to be made to Aerlínte. I should be interested to know whether any strings are attached to this advance £5 million to be made available to Aerlínte. For instance, will the finance be available for expenditure on projects other than the purchase and maintenance of aircrafts or the purchase and maintenance of equipment associated with the air service?

I see also that it proposed to increase the limit to £50 million which Aer Lingus and Aerlínte between them may borrow. What strikes me first of all is that Aerlínte and Aer Lingus are being treated separately and then they are being treated together because it is also mentioned in the Minister's statement that Aer Lingus and Aerlínte between them may borrow under a guarantee of the Minister for Finance. Apparently there is some arrangement here and perhaps the Minister will make clear the reason for the separation of finances for separate operating purposes. There is also the fact that while Aerlínte are able to make an operating profit from their transatlantic operations at the present time, Aer Lingus are only barely able to make ends meet. From the technical point of view, the reason is of course because of the longer hauls between this country and the USA by comparison with the short haul activities of Aer Lingus.

Apparently the transatlantic type Jumbo Jet, the Boeing 747 and the Boeing 320, are to be brought into operation in the future. These are very expensive types of aircraft and we have already placed our orders for them; possibly a deposit has been paid for them, too. We know that air travel is developing very rapidly and with it technical changes are coming very quickly in the matter of design of aircraft, types of aircraft, the facilities available to travellers and all the amenities that make up the journey for one passenger between two points. Aer Lingus and Aerlínte are fully aware of the need for change in order to keep up with these technical developments. Consequently, at the present time the life of an aircraft is limited by the speed with which new prototypes are adopted and put into operation. The result is, unfortunately, that it is very difficult to get a return on the capital invested because it has no sooner got to the stage of showing a profit than it becomes necessary once more to replace the aircraft by a more recent model.

All the technical equipment which goes with the aircraft has also to be replaced and the aircraft which we have had up to then is almost outdated. I know that a number of countries are still interested in purchasing obsolete aircraft. The word "obsolete" is used by those who put modern aircraft into operation and who try to capture the valuable traffic on the airlines where these modern aircraft are put into operation. Our obselete aircraft are sold to countries or to airlines who are able to operate on a commercial, or perhaps a national, basis with the older type of aircraft. We in Ireland are on the western outpost of Europe. Our country is between the Continent of the United States and the Continent of Europe. We cannot stand down by using outmoded aircraft while airlines operating between Europe and America are using modern aircraft and modern techniques of attracting passengers to their particular lines. For that reason perhaps it is necessary for us to keep abreast of modern developments so far as air traffic is concerned. Our geographical position is perhaps fortunate. We must ensure that we will get our share of the traffic available between this country and the numerous airports in Britain and on the Continent of Europe. In addition to that, we have to compete with the transatlantic aircraft and the various airlines who operate transatlantic air-services. If we are not able to offer to transatlantic passengers the facilities available to them from other airlines we would lose business. It is necessary for us now to provide the necessary finance to enable Aerlínte and Aer Lingus to keep up their position by purchasing modern aircraft as it becomes available. It will be some years yet before the 747 jets or the Boeing 320 and what are described as the Jumbo Jets will be available to us. At this stage it is necessary for us to take our place in the queue of those who have already ordered these aircraft.

Aer Lingus has quite a problem to keep above a certain level and to operate so as to break even rather than lose too much. Aer Lingus is the airline which operates the services between this country and Great Britain and European airports. It is important that we should have our national air services flying between these places in order to cater for the tourists interested in coming here. It is possible that we would lose a percentage of tourist traffic if we did not have an Irish airline service available to these European airports for people interested in travelling to this country. Aer Lingus can be regarded as a substantial contributor to our tourist income.

There is a point which it is only right to mention at this stage. We cannot lay all the blame at the doorstep of Aer Lingus, but there are complaints from people regarding the fares being charged by them between the various airports. Generally speaking, these charges hit the tourist. The tourist is the person we are interested in seeing here. We do not want to have him discouraged by the air fares. I know Aer Lingus must try to make ends meet and must put up their fares to a level designed to meet the cost, and possibly to provide a reasonable profit. We must be careful about the air fares. We have had complaints from Irish people travelling back and forward to Great Britain regarding the cost of flying between this country and Great Britain.

It is possible that the air fares between the European ports and Dublin and Shannon are also rather high. There is a considerable amount of anxiety in the minds of our people at the moment with regard to the prospects for this year's tourist season. There is a feeling that we are not getting the business this year and that the tourists are not coming here in the numbers we had expected. People fear that the profits we had anticipated from these visitors will not be realised. It is possible that we are pricing ourselves out so far as tourists are concerned and that the Aer Lingus fare is one aspect of the problem which is turning away the tourist from this country or discouraging him at least. We ought to see whether Aer Lingus can adopt any kind of tourist season adjustment in the fares which would encourage tourists to come here.

We cannot blame Aer Lingus completely if tourists are discouraged from visiting our country and from staying to spend their money here because unfortunately there are other interests involved also which, of course, involve the tourists in expenses which they are not prepared to meet if they have an alternative. I know that if Aer Lingus did adopt some kind of tourist season air fare structure the wintertime revenue would not be sufficient to make ends meet, because it is possible that the number of persons travelling by Aer Lingus at this time of the year would be eight times as many as the number in the valley season when there is not this tourist traffic between this country and outside.

I know that it is with Great Britain and Europe that the tourist problem for us is most important, but we do depend too on visitors from the United States and Canada who will avail of our transatlantic service via Shannon. When I mention Shannon it is a peculiar fact, and it is lucky that the situation is as it exists, that with some kind of adjustment in fact our transatlantic service is from Dublin via Shannon to the USA. The United States have been seeking permission to fly direct into Dublin and they have been refused, so our Irish airlines by an arrangement with Aer Lingus are able to make the flight from Dublin to Limerick, land there and then take off from Shannon transatlantic to the USA. There is a part of the Aerlínte service in which Aer Lingus is involved. I believe that in fact Aer Lingus provide the technical personnel or the necessary computers and machinery involved in this exercise, for which they secure a nominal payment.

I raised one point earlier with the Minister here and I would like to get it cleared up. We noticed some months ago that Aer Lingus—please correct me if I am wrong — invested £350,000 in Ryan's Tourist Hotels. Now of course that investment may be a good one for Aer Lingus and those associated with them, but it is, in my view, unfair competition with the commercial hotels who hope to get support and business from visitors to this country. This tie-up between Ryan's Tourist Hotels and Aer Lingus means that when a person in America or Canada decides to come into this country his programme is mapped out for him there and then, including the Ryan's Tourist Hotels wherever they may be and the services associated with them such as the hire car service and whatever facilities people would expect to get when they land in this country. It seems to be very unfair competition to me.

Surely the Senator is not suggesting that every prospective Aer Lingus passenger in America must stay in Ryan's Tourist Hotels.

No, but the Leader of the House is not so stupid as not to know very well that a complete stranger starting out from America or Canada will put himself in the hands of those travel agents who will map out his journey for him, make his bookings even to the hotels, name his hotels, select his hotels, count the days and the nights and the expenses. The complaint is that when a complete stranger walks into a travel office in New York, Boston or elsewhere coming to this country of course Aer Lingus has this tie-up with Ryan's Tourist Hotels and of course the travel agent is going to produce in black and white his booklet, his time table, his price list, and all the costs and all the problems which will be solved right along the line from the time he leaves Boston or New York until he gets back there.

What is wrong with that if he gets better value?

There is nothing wrong with it except that it is most unfair to the rest of the hotels in this country.

Is this strictly relevant?

I am asking the Minister is any of this money going to be used in the same way?

I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister that none of this money is going to be used in channelling visitors and tourists in——

It is capital moneys for the purchase of aircraft.

Of course the £350,000 was capital also. It was an investment.

This is for the purchase of aircraft which we are concerned about.

We are concerned about making money for Aer Lingus here and what I am saying is that Aer Lingus is making money for Ryan's at the moment.

The Senator should read the speech of his former illustrious colleague in the Seanad, now in the Dáil, on this Bill.

As a matter of fact I did read it and I hope that the Senator did too.

Then there are two of us.

I do not think that the Senator read that particular speech.

I think that we should avoid political polemics in a serious matter of this kind. If we want to talk politically we could go back to 1948 when the most profitable business done by the company was scrapped.

We could go back to Seaboard Limited if you like to go back that far. The Minister was in petticoats at that time.

They sold the transatlantic service.

Sold out to Seaboard. The Senator says that he has read Deputy Dr. FitzGerald's contribution in relation to this matter but apparently he did not understand it.

Does the Senator understand it?

Come back to the point.

I do of course understand it. Now if I may proceed——

Stick to the point.

I am sticking to the point. I have the assurance which I wanted to get from the Minister that there will be no more tricks between Ryan's Tourist Hotels and Aer Lingus.

Do not be misquoting me. I said nothing about tricks.

I know that you did not call it a trick.

I gave no assurance at all.

Is there no assurance at all?

I was talking about the purposes of the Bill.

I am talking about the purpose of the Bill, which is to make this money available, because of course Aer Lingus or Aerlínte would be hamstrung if they found it necessary to pay interest on all this money out of profits or even out of revenue; and, on that point, after £5 million will have been invested in the company the Minister proposes to charge interest not out of profit but out of revenue and I think that that is fair enough because it is part of the operating cost of the provision of this particular £5 million. It is a peculiar arrangement that this £5 million is described by the Minister as an advance and is not described by him as a loan; and still he is going to get interest on this advance and apparently it is a non-repayable advance. Apparently he does not want to call it a grant which, of course, would be non-repayable anyway. He called it a non-repayable advance.

Interest bearing. That is the important point.

It is. I appreciate that it is interest bearing but apparently at no stage will the Minister expect this £5 million to be repaid except if the amount of interest charged against it eventually overtakes it. We could calculate, of course, over a period of time at a rate of 8 or 9 per cent, how long it would take.

You do not take an excellent investment out. You leave it there.

I appreciate that, but what I wanted to put to the Minister at this stage is why decide to do this at all? Is he just going to charge interest against the non-repayable advance or what is he going to do with this interest he has received from the non-repayable advance? It seems to be a very peculiar adjustment. What is the point of charging interest against it at all if he does not expect it, first of all, to be repaid and, secondly, if he does not take the interest which he is charging? Apparently he is going to charge interest on this non-repayable advance but does not intend to take the money.

What do the words "interest bearing" mean?

The Minister has already said he is not going to take this money. He is making a charge and still not going to take it. What is the idea of the exercise at all? Is it a bookkeeping one? The Minister has told me he is not going to take this interest.

I did not say it.

The Minister said he was not going to take back the interest.

Now somebody says he will take it. The Minister will have to make up his mind whether he will take it.

Of course I will take it.

If the Minister does, I should be interested to know at this stage how much he is likely to receive in the first 12 months from the date on which the £5 million non-repayable advance is made? That is a fair question to ask.

It is only a matter of adding a few noughts. You know what I mean.

It is £45,000 if you want to know. Let us hear from the Minister if he is going to get this £45,000 from Aerlínte or is he going to leave it with them. He said he is going to leave it with them. Let us hear from him now whether he is going to leave it with them. If he is going to leave it with them why is he charging it? I see here a very satisfactory operating statistic. The revenue in 1949 was £4.8 million compared with £24 million last year which shows an increase of approximately 400 per cent. The number of passengers in the meantime, who contributed to this increase in revenue of 400 per cent, increased by over 166 per cent. Then the employment figure, if I am right—please correct me if I am not— has gone up by 250 per cent during that ten year period. Is that right?

The Senator is doing his sums well.

I think I am. So, if you put the employment percentage up and the passenger percentage up it shows there is a measure of efficiency there in relation to the revenue in 1969. There are other aspects here associated with this capital loan and the Minister may be able to advise me with regard to them. He mentioned here the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jets, bought for Aer Lingus and Aerlínte. This will involve a considerable development at Collinstown Airport, such as longer runways, the purchase of hundreds of acres of land, the equipping of those runways with radar and all the other services which are provided in connection with an airstrip. I wonder whether part of this finance, which the Minister has mentioned, will be used for the purchase of this land and for the construction of those runways or is it only for the purchase of aircraft?

I should like to know from the Minister which way this money will be used. Will it be left to Aer Lingus and Aerlínte to expend the money in all the different ways associated with those Boeing Jets, not just on the aircraft alone but on the ground equipment, the airstrips, the purchase of land and all the different services which go to make up carrying passengers by those Jumbo Jets.

Here again, although we have the finance available between Aerlínte and Aer Lingus, we have separate purchases being made by them. Apparently Aerlínte are going to purchase eight Boeing 747 Jets and Aer Lingus are going to purchase one Boeing 320 Jet. Why are those separate purchases being made when in fact the capital of both Aer Lingus and Aerlínte is put together for the purpose of making separate purchases of aircraft to each of those services?

Finally, I should like to know from the Minister how soon we may expect the Boeing cross-channel aircraft to be available. I know the transatlantic aircraft may be delayed somewhat and it may be a different type aircraft which will be purchased but I would like to know how soon those large planes will be going into service? I do not believe at the moment the airstrips at Collinstown Airport will be capable of dealing with them. Does that mean they would be located at Shannon Airport if they are purchased before the new airstrips are made and the land is purchased around Collinstown Airport?

Even at the present time there are widespread complaints from the residents of Dublin City and towns in County Dublin, such as Dún Laoghaire, regarding the noise made by these planes as they cross over the city and nearby towns. I wonder whether the Minister, now that he is in this Department, would inquire from Aer Lingus whether any steps can be taken either to change the route of those aircraft or to cut down the noise. Dublin City and its citizens were there long before Collinstown Airport was established and these services came under way. I think the citizens are entitled to expect the least possible interference with their normal comfort. Something will have to be done about the noise and also about the vibration caused when aircraft are flying at low levels, in order to reduce to a minimum the nuisance caused by those aircraft.

We can avail of this Bill and the opportunity it presents to us to congratulate the air companies, Aer Lingus and Aerlínte, on their continued success record. It is good to see that they are back again with expansion problems. Of course the expansion is not altogether all their own doing because the greatly-accelerated pace of technological development in the aircraft industry is making itself felt with the demand for bigger and faster jets. Aer Lingus have, of course, to maintain their proud place as an international airline and have to keep up with this even though I think many of us hope and pray that many of the marvels of science will be delayed for many years yet. Certainly the supersonic jets will pose very great problems when they arrive, not least of all the sonic boom and the effect that will have on the country as a whole. So far, little or no progress has been made in mitigating it. However, we are not facing it in the present period and we hope it will be well into the next five-year period before it becomes a reality.

The sum involved for the next five year period is quite a large one by any standards—£71 million. It is satisfactory to find that Aer Lingus are providing £28 million from their own resources, £28 million by way of borrowing and £15 million from the Government, £5 million of which is full interest-bearing and the other £10 million of which is by way of share capital. The only figure I question is the £28 million borrowed because I presume it will have to be borrowed from outside the State. We know that in such a case it makes very expensive money because there is no return by way of taxation here to the Exchequer on the interest paid—it just leaves the country.

I do not intend to go into any great details on the Bill, except to point out again the necessity for co-ordinating our various State enterprises, because success to Aer Lingus in many ways might be in some fields rather costly to the country as a whole: in other words, the great promotional effort that Aer Lingus make to convince our people that holidays abroad are much better and that to be "with it" one should take one's holidays abroad and, no doubt, fly in an Aer Lingus jet.

Although flying in an Aer Lingus jet is shown on the positive side by Aer Lingus, certainly it is very much on the negative side for the tourist industry. I am not satisfied that the Government have evolved an adequate means for co-ordinating the activities of the various semi-State bodies, because they are all on the basis of the success of the indivilual body. I think we need a Ministry for Co-ordination, primarily to ensure that activities are harmonised, and secondly to produce the best result not only for the company as such, but the best result for the national economy.

That is precisely my job.

I did not think, with all due respect, that the Minister's Department were equipped for that task.

Indeed they are.

But I do not think you have a responsibility for tourism.

Yes, I have.

Is not the Minister for Industry and Commerce partly responsible?

No, I have had total responsibility for it.

During the last two months we have had a row between CIE and Aer Lingus over the fare from Cork to Dublin and the inadequate air service which operates from there. As I understand it, CIE have been adopting a rather dog-in-the-manger attitude to this service. I should like the Minister to elucidate that.

We should have adequate link ups between our airports. It is ridiculous for tourists arriving in Dublin not to be able to continue to Cork or Belfast if their journey so requires them to. The amount of revenue lost to CIE by any such arrangement would be negligible in comparison to the inconvenience caused to the travellers and the damage that it can do to our image abroad when we cannot provide facilities which most tourists regard as elementary air travel facilities between Dublin, the capital city, Cork and Belfast.

I think the airline live up quite well to the reputation of the "friendly airline". Certainly on transatlantic services they compare with the best. But when will Aer Lingus succeed in breaking through the red tape that prevents them making the trip from America to Shannon a comfortable one? It is the most uncomfortable air trip that can be had anywhere. The travellers get on board at the end of the American day, nine or ten o'clock at night. The meals and so on take the best part of another three or four hours. One may then doze for two hours or so before entering the broad morning of the Atlantic and within an hour of that one lands at Shannon. The whole night has to be a strain on the traveller. It would seem that if at all possible a daylight service should be operated on that route or, alternatively, a sleeper service. If meals are to be served, especially a big dinner on such a trip, it could be done best by giving the passengers coupons to have a meal either at New York or Boston while they are waiting to board the plane, apart from a drink or two in the first half hour. Some effort should be made to enable the passengers to sleep for the remainder of the night. Indeed, there is no need to serve orange juice when approaching Shannon in the morning. It would be much better to provide a breakfast coupon which could be used either at Shannon or at Dublin.

I understand that this is not entirely the fault of Aer Lingus but that it stems from international air regulations. I am speaking not only from personal experience but from the considered opinion of many travellers when I say that the complete loss of a night's sleep between New York and Shannon is a very uncomfortable experience.

While the amount of State investment involved in this is not considerable—it stands at present at £14.8 million and there are £10 million by way of loan capital, making a total of more than £24 million—it is quite high for a number of 5,000. In other words, it is £5,000 per worker. I know, of course, that the workers involved are very highly skilled and I suggest to the Minister that it might be possible to develop through Aer Lingus the consultancy side of the business. Legislation was passed to deal with this in the case of the engineering services, to facilitate consulting engineers abroad. Our airline here has a great deal to offer to other countries in the consultancy field—countries that are at a less-developed stage than we are. It would be sound policy to get our investment back in this way.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Before the tea-break I was dealing with the highly-specialised staff we have been fortunate in assembling in Aer Lingus. I was expressing the hope that it would be possible to use that staff to provide a consulting agency in the airline business to other countries. We must try to get some return from modern technology. Being a small country, we have to buy the products of technology in a manufactured state, whether they are computers or jet aircraft. We just simply pay for them. We get nothing at all from the great amounts spent in development work in connection with these marvels of modern science. Therefore, the only way we can get anything back from science is by using the talent we have gathered together here on a consultancy basis. Many other small countries which are less developed in air travel than we are would be quite anxious to use our talents.

Three months ago we had the Export Promotions Bill before the House. One of the tasks in that Bill was to encourage An Foras Tionscal to aid consulting engineers in going out and seeking consulting work all over the world. In the debate on that Bill, which I commended to the Minister, we stressed that this should be broadened considerably and should reach out to any pool of specialists we have got. We should use this as a basis for looking for appropriate work anywhere in the world. Now right here we are in one of our dilemmas in that that board with the present task that was entrusted to it is controlled by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, by Deputy Colley, and the airlines are controlled of course by the Minister for Transport and Power. I do hope that it will be possible within the Government to get over this divided responsibility and see that Aer Lingus are encouraged to go into the consulting business as much as possible. It could be very lucrative for us and we would be doing a service to the rest of the world and at the same time giving our trained scientists and engineers, accountants and others in Aer Lingus an opportunity of doing some really high-grade work in developing systems elsewhere, so I ask the Minister to look into that and push it as far as he can.

I was very encouraged by the Minister today when he said at the end of his statement that a very comprehensive review is being undertaken of the requirements of Aer Lingus in the next five-year period. He said "The companies are planning to undertake in 1970-71 a review in depth of their capital programmes and commercial operations and will engage specialist consultants as necessary to assist them in doing this". This of course is as it should be, and in a very rapidly-developing business like airlines it is a necessity. I assume that the Minister and his staff will be doing something similar.

Now here I come to the commercial We have pleaded many times in this House to the Minister to take this House into it at least before the planning is finalised by setting up an Oireachtas committee that will receive the reports from Aer Lingus, the air companies and the Minister's Department and work with them in helping to finalise Government policy also in regard to the very heavy capital commitments that might be expected in the following period. This is a task that is ideally suited to Seanad personnel, and I feel that if the Minister did it he would be taking the first step in getting the promised committees review that the Taoiseach spoke about under way. I promise him for myself and for Members of this House if any of us will be fortunate enough to be in the next House, that we would feel that we were discharging our real function in the national economy if we could be in a little earlier in the planning stages to bring the voice of the Oireachtas to bear on the discussions and deliberations of the specialists from the airlines and the Minister's Department. If that were the case it would be much more satisfactory than just to be faced with another demand like we have got now for a further £71 million and not being able to do very much in a short debate except to approve of it and let it go. I appeal to the Minister to give us this opportunity. If he does I know that the Seanad will not be found wanting in its responsibility.

With this I again congratulate Aer Lingus on their progress and I hope that their expansion in the next five years will be as spectacular and as profitable as it has been in the past five years.

I was rather surprised to hear that there might be some lack of expertise on behalf of the Aer Lingus staff in the development of the airline business, because being near Shannon I am personally aware of the close work that has gone on between the technical people in Aer Lingus and the companies that manufacture planes I know that the technical people in Aer Lingus are recognised in America and in England and in any other place where the technological business of airlines is concerned as being some of the finest exponents of technological activities in the airlines. I am surprised Senator Quinlan does not know this. Aer Lingus have had a lot of their representatives at the actual manufacturing operation of the aeroplanes where they were made.

They are supervisory.

They have been sending their staff to Seattle and other places where the aeroplanes are actually manufactured. We have in Aer Lingus the most highly-trained technological experts in the airline business that you can get in any country comparable to our size.

That is why I advocated using them on a consultant basis.

The inference was they were actually deficient technologically. Aer Lingus staff have actually been engaged in this for a long time. Some of their pilots and technological people have been sent to the different places where the aircraft were bought. I am well aware of this fact. Aer Lingus, in my opinion, for the amount of money made available to them, have done a remarkable service to this country by advertising and the promotion of the country's tourist trade but also in the technological field. I do not believe they are deficient in any respect. The Senator inferred that we should start sending those experts abroad to acquire this knowledge which I know they already have.

On a point of correction, I suggested sending them abroad to consult and advise others in the skills which they have got, which is the reverse of what the Senator imputed to me.

I will accept that. When you consider that we do not make aeroplanes in this country and that we are going to start sending people abroad to advise others how to make them, that is taking on a lot. Aer Lingus, for the size of this country and their own resources, are undertaking very considerable promotional activities. We have in Aer Lingus at the moment the highest experts you could find anywhere. It is most unlikely that we can go to some other country to advise them how to make aeroplanes.

Actually what we are doing is availing of the knowledge of the people who make aeroplanes and we are getting this knowledge at a comparatively low cost in return for using their products. I consider Aer Lingus one of the most important semi-State bodies and I think everybody, even foreigners, regard them as being highly skilled, highly organised and people devoted to their work. We have every reason to be proud of them.

I am very glad of the general welcome given to the Bill in Seanad Éireann. It is quite obvious as far as the air companies are concerned —I do not intend to go into the mechanics of their interlocking together—both Aer Lingus and Aerlínte are operating in a very competitive field. They are doing so very successfully and they are operating at a profit. In the other House this fact was acknowledged quite clearly by Deputy FitzGerald speaking on behalf of the Fine Gael Party and there is no need for me here to eulogise the type of commercial progress made by our air companies in a very highly competitive field.

Just to elaborate on what this is about in practical terms, the amount the air companies propose to raise over the next five years is £71.5 million. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that as far as the State is concerned the Minister for Finance on behalf of the State will take equity shares up to £10 million. In addition to that, he will be empowered under the Bill to make loan capital available to the extent of £5 million. It is also provided in the Bill to increase to a total of a £50 million limit the money which both companies can borrow. The remainder of the £71.5 million required during the next five years for capital purposes after the £15 million invested by the State in equity share holding and loan capital will be raised by the air companies from their own resources. What is involved in this— I am answering the question myself— is a complete re-equipping of the Aer Lingus/Aerlínte fleet of planes and the airport facilities designed to meet the need for those new planes in order to retain, maintain and improve the air companies' competitive position in the world air markets.

Briefly what is involved is this: as of April of this year, we have had one Boeing 737 jet brought into operation. The other six that are now commissioned will be delivered in September, October and November of this year and in March and April of next year. In regard to the Boeing 320, we have five. One was delivered in April, 1969, and the rest will be delivered later.

In regard to the 747, which is properly known as the Jumbo Jet, which is the major transatlantic effort on the part of Aerlínte, two of those have been commissioned and one will be delivered early next year and the other in 1971. The whole purpose of this exercise, which is being well calculated, well organised, well thought out, is that our airlines will have a fully-equipped jet fleet to meet the requirements of the modern air traffic age.

The Viscounts, which served their purpose in their time, will be replaced by the type of fleet which will keep Aer Lingus/Aerlínte in the air as far as the future is concerned. Mind you, I want to say that this is not a limitless future. We are planning for five years ahead and there will be other developments. There is no need for me to emphasise that the recent moon movements will mean that there will be a very rapid change in airlines in the future. Our air companies, which have had tremendous success since their foundation, have all the time to keep right up to it in this respect and the type of money that is involved in going into the supersonic jet age in the future and the further investments that will be required by our national air companies to keep in competition profitably, as they have done heretofore, into the 1970s and the 1980s will be different from what it was.

The sort of thinking which air companies have to engage in is not limited to five years: it is limited to ten, 15 and 20 years. This sort of thinking involves contemplation of massive capital investment in the future. The main purpose of this Bill is to put Aer Lingus into a capital structure position whereby they will in the future be, and appear to be, a viable enterprise that can raise money in any market in the world for its future expansion. What we are seeking to do here in this Bill is to ensure roughly a fifty-fifty balance between equity investment and loan capital investment. The State is placing, I think, a very well-earned trust in our air companies by ensuring that it will put a £10 million equity investment into Aer Lingus; an investment which, in my view, will be well remunerated on the commercial record of the company heretofore and in addition to that it will have a £5 million loan capital investment on which interest repayment will be guaranteed. The purpose of this is to ensure that the company will move forward into a position where—and I am certain they will in the years ahead—raise the necessary finance for further expansion.

I had occasion the day before yesterday to be in Wicklow looking at the new generating station which is now being constructed by the ESB. This is a £12 million investment, half of which is being put in by the World Bank. We want more of this sort of investment. All our State companies and private companies will require investment and the only way to build up that type of investment in our country in our enterprises, both private and public, is by creating confidence and creating a situation where these companies can be seen to be totally and completely commercially viable. They will then be in a position to generate confidence which will raise whatever funds they require.

There is no need for me to emphasise the fact that our airlines are the most successful in the world at their particular level of operation. There is no need for me to emphasise that on the transatlantic haul they are making commercial profits on the most commercial assessment that one can make they are making money and that on their short haul operation between Britain and Europe they are more than holding their won and fitting into the overall commercial profit which is being made by the airlines as a whole. Apart from that there are substantial tourist benefits. Aer Lingus receive the revenue earning benefits from the services operated by them which would otherwise be operated by another airline. There is also the substantial employment benefit, where we now have 5,000 employed compared with 2,000 ten years ago.

I want to assure Senator Rooney that there are no strings, to use his phrase, attached to anything being done in this respect. This is a completely commercial operation.

I should like to say in regard to what Senator Quinlan has said, that his point of view is one that is concerning me, on the whole question of to what degree there can be a reasonable extension of parliamentary control in regard to our State-sponsored organisations. My own thinking at the present time is that we should— although I do not think it is appropriate on this particular measure— draw up some form of differentials or separation between what you might call the social orientated corporations and the commercial orientated corporations.

What Senator Quinlan suggests might be more appropriate in regard to some of the other State-sponsored organisations, but in my view it would not be appropriate in regard to this particular one. But we do have other State-sponsored organisations which do not have to be commercially orientated to the same extent and in respect of those particular corporations I think there does exist a Prima facie case for some degree of parliamentary supervision.

But with regard to this particular area, air companies are totally commercial and are engaged in the toughest commercial business in the world and I think anything of that nature would be inappropriate as far as they are concerned. We must rely on the expertise of the board, the expertise of the management and the expertise of their staffs at all levels. They have proved themselves heretofore and their only problem in the future will be to raise the necessary funds.

The funds will not be of the order of £71.5 million which we are talking about today, they are going to be substantially more than that—and when I say substantially I mean substantially with a capital "S"—because that is the reality as we move in the 1970's and the 1980's, and moving into that sort of world in this highly competitive field I feel we must give them the greatest possible commercial freedom. The main purpose of this Bill— again I am going back to my point— is to ensure that they have a financial structure which will enable them to attract the commercial capital which they can attract if they get themselves organised as between equity and loan capital on a reasonable basis. I appreciate the fact that both the Seanad and the Dáil have welcomed the Bill generally in that respect. I am very glad of the contributions made here by members of the House on other aspects which might not have been striclty relevant to this particular Bill but have certainly been helpful to me in my own thinking on the whole future of our State-sponsored organisations in our community.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share