If the Government refuse to vote more money it means that, at the end of the expenditure of a sum of £450,000, this proposed service will terminate. I think that the particulars which the Minister has given all indicate that, even after the discussion here or even after this discussion has started, consideration should be given to the terms of the agreement and to making it available to Deputies—certainly those parts of the agreement which are necessary in order to assess accurately the full significance of this proposed arrangement.
I understand from the Minister's statement that the office staff, the booking arrangements, and so on, which the proposed service envisages will be provided by Aer Línte. That will mean the establishment of an office in the United States of America, the staffing of that office and, I assume, the payment in dollars of the staff concerned. On that, it seems to me that very careful consideration will have to be given—assuming that this proposed agreement is implemented—to the type of publicity which is indulged in or the type of advertisement that is undertaken by Aer Línte. I do not know who was responsible the last time for the publicity arrangements but certainly some of the publicity in some of the American journals reflected no credit on this country and no credit on the outlook which whoever was responsible had on the Irish people. I do not know whether the publicity which was in the New Yorker was widely. disseminated in America. If it was or if publicity was undertaken in other journals comparable to that which was given in the New Yorker, then I hope that whoever was responsible will have nothing whatever to do with the publicity that may be given in respect of this proposed service. I do not think that any persons in America—certainly no volume of travelling passengers— will travel on an Irish airline merely for sentiment. If it offers the same or better terms than another line then certainly they will be attracted to it. If the terms are equal to those provided by other air companies it may attract passengers who have Irish connections. To think, however, that people will travel on an airline merely for sentiment or, for that matter, that people will travel on any other type of passenger service whether it be a shipping service or a railway merely because it has Irish connections or because it is operated under the Irish flag is to refuse to face realities. With few exceptions, people always travel on the cheapest service which gives the type of convenience and the amenities which they expect.
I understand that one of the reasons why this service is proposed is that it is for prestige purposes. That was the phrase used in connection with the service that was abandoned in 1948. Again, I think there are limitations to the extent to which a small country should indulge in expenditure for prestige purposes. There are some services—some proposals—which any country must undertake for prestige purposes but there are certain types of expenditure that no small country can justify merely for the sake of prestige. I do not think there is any merit in the suggestion that a transatlantic air service operated by an Irish air company should be embarked upon merely for the purpose of prestige. One might as well suggest that we should indulge in a vast and expensive rearmament programme. There might be a far stronger case for such expenditure than there would for a proposal to establish an airline merely for prestige purposes.
This proposal differs from the establishment of an entirely Irish airline in so far as the aircraft and crews, with the exception of the passenger-handling crews, will be provided by Seaboard and Western Airlines. It is, I think, a matter of regret that, if a scheme is proposed, the Irish personnel will be confined to the passenger-handling end of it. It may be argued that if we had our own airline and that if we had our own service fully manned it would be possible to avoid this. I do not think that the employment content in an airline of this sort is anything that would warrant public expenditure on the scale that is proposed here. The employment content in it is comparatively small and the expenditure in relation to the volume of employment provided—unless the company operate on a very extensive scale—must be considerable in relation to the number of persons employed. Therefore, the argument that there is available employment prospects for skilled Irish personnel is, I think, merely an exaggeration and does not reflect accurately the position that will arise. I think, however, it is right to say that, in so far as all services operated by Irish companies are concerned, the standard of efficiency, the skill and the entire service has been up to the highest standard of any airline in any part of the world. The fact that it has been possible to provide that service reflects credit on all concerned with the development of civil aviation.
I do not think that anyone would for a moment suggest that the services provided by Aer Lingus — the crews, the staff of the offices at Dublin, Shannon or elsewhere, and the whole management of that concern — are anything but such as would deserve the highest testimony from anyone who has had experience of them. It does not in any way reflect on the efficiency of the service to say that we consider that it is entirely wrong, in present circumstances, to propose a transatlantic air service. If conditions were different here, if general economic circumstances were better, if we could say that there were conditions of full employment, if it were possible to lighten the burden of taxation on the people, if budgetary considerations did not make it more and more difficult for all sections of the people to meet their commitments, then it might be appropriate and the Dáil might consider a proposal of this kind. We believe that, in the light of the present economic and financial situation—in a year in which more and more burdens by way of direct Government action have been placed on the people of the country— it is quite out of keeping to propose a service of this kind.
I know that this matter has been the subject of controversy in the past, that it is not possible perhaps to consider it in an entirely detached way or to approach the proposal on its merits, but there seem to me to be insufficient data provided on which Deputies could take an entirely detached view and consider the proposal merely on the basis of the estimated results, as indicated by the estimates made by those directly concerned. Even on that view, it is not possible to get a picture which would reflect confidence in the establishment, from an economic point of view, of a transatlantic air service. The year ahead, as far as one can judge, from Government statements is going to be a year of more and more difficulties, economically and otherwise, for the people of the country. If that is the economic position as outlined by the Government, and if the conditions or suggestions contained in ministerial statements are justified, then it seems to me this is the wrong time to initiate proposals for a transatlantic air service.
The proposed agreement has not been made available and, as far as one can gather from the remarks of the Minister, further information cannot be given in view of the fact that the agreement is one between two commercial undertakings and that it might in some way damage the commercial prospects of the proposed airline to make information available to competitors. It is, however, only right that the House should expect full details of this agreement, full details of the material terms so that it can decide on the agreement, on the proposals in it and what the prospects are. So far as the estimates which have been given to the House are concerned, it is expected that in the first three years the proposed airline will run at a loss. It is expected that if the full expenditure provided for under this arrangement has not been exhausted it will then be possible to run it at a profit. If, on the other hand, that money is expended the agreement will terminate.
I do not think the agreement has anything in it which would commend it to this House or anything in it which would commend itself on a commercial basis because the terms which were given indicate that there is a minimum limitation of two flights per week which must be paid for by Aer Línte. On the assumption that traffic will decrease during the off season there is no expectancy that the increase in traffic during the peak season will result in a profit. It is stated, according to the anticipated figures for next year, that approximately 20,000 to 25,000 persons will travel to this country from America or from this country to the United States of America and that half that traffic will be handled by this company, but unless the air service provided by this agreement can provide transport at lower rates than those provided by their competitors, then it will be unreasonable to expect that half that traffic will be handled by this company.
I do not think it is reasonable to expect the House to pass this Supplementary Estimate on the basis that the company must get half the estimated traffic of between 20,000 to 25,000 passengers next year. If it did that, it would make a profit of £64,000 but if it gets less than 10,000 passengers a year it will make a loss, according to the Minister's figures, of £48,000. It is impossible on the information available to work out how that estimate is made up or to decide on what basis it has been arrived at. Anyone with any experience of a transatlantic service will agree that it would be entirely unreasonable to expect this company to get half, or more, of the total number of passengers travelling, unless the company can provide a cheaper service and give the same amenities as their competitors. I understand that it is proposed to provide what is known as a tourist rate for passengers. That depends again on the number of passengers anxious to avail of that type of service. Although the indications are that the numbers availing of tourist rates are increasing, unless passengers can get some additional benefits by reason of the rates charged or by reason of some other amenities or facilities, certainly very few will be prepared to avail of this service in preference to any other service. I do not think there is anything which this proposed service can provide which would make it more attractive to tourists than the service provided by their competitors. If there is, it may succeed in getting the larger share of the traffic.
I think in present circumstances, on the basis of the proposals outlined in the Minister's introductory speech it is impossible for the House to accept this proposal. While we have been assured that it is not proposed to commit the country or the Exchequer to further expenditure over and above the sum of £450,000, one result of the termination of the proposed service in 1948 was that the Exchequer benefited to the extent of £450,000. If that sum were proposed to be expended on a project which would give indications of a better return than this one, then I believe there would be support in this House for the proposal but on the basis of experience of transatlantic air service and on the basis of the indications which were given in the Minister's introductory speech, it is impossible to accept the suggestion that it will be possible to limit the expenditure to the sum of £450,000. We have got then either to terminate whatever the existing arrangements are at the end of a certain period or we have got to incur further expenditure. One of the big difficulties with any service of this sort is that, once you go a certain distance, you have got to go further. I think it is better not to go any distance rather than nibble at it and then find yourself in the position that you have got either to curtail further developments or to incur further expenditure by the provision of direct State assistance.
There are various proposals under consideration for the development of tourist traffic. These proposals we hope will result in an increase in traffic but from the statement made by the Minister there is no proposal inherent in this agreement which will attract to this country, by means of this airline, increased traffic resulting in any profit to the company concerned.
As I said earlier, we are opposed to this proposal in existing circumstances. We do not see anything in it which would justify the expenditure of money that is already available. It was provided from the sale of aircraft that we had already acquired and had accrued in the benefit of the Exchequer. If it is now proposed to expend this money, it will involve the Exchequer in outlay that cannot offer any prospect of an adequate return in exchange for it. The fact that it is proposed to expend this sum of money is merely an indication that further losses will be incurred, that the Exchequer will be obliged to bear further demands and that the public, in turn, will have to bear further burdens in order to maintain the proposals in this agreement which, of course, depend on the sanction of the Government for implementation.
This is a matter which has been the subject of considerable controversy, and nothing which the Minister has said in his opening speech, or in the concluding parts of it, would justify the expectation that it can be otherwise than controversial or the subject of opposition by those who believe that there is anything in the proposal which would justify the Exchequer of this country being committed to this expenditure. We believe that the proposal is unwise in present circumstances, and that it is likely to be unprofitable. We believe that there is no justification on economic, or indeed on any grounds, for the proposals outlined in the Minister's speech which would justify the implementation of the agreement proposed between Aer Línte and the American company.
