Time remaining for debate on this motion is one hour and 30 minutes. The time remaining to Deputy Dillon, who is in possession, is 15 minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Cross-Channel Shipping—Motion.
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann, being of opinion that it is not in the national interest that cross-Channel shipping should remain almost exclusively under foreign control, requests the Government to institute, as a matter of urgency, an investigation into the whole position with a view to securing that a substantial proportion of the cross-Channel trade shall be brought under Irish control.— (Deputy Russell.)
I have nothing to add.
This is a very reasonable motion to bring before the House and I am glad the Minister has received it in a very reasonable fashion. However, he pointed out the difficulties involved in getting into this business of cross-Channel trade. No matter what line of business we go into we are bound to face difficulties. We faced difficulties in starting our air traffic which is a more modern system of traffic than shipping and we are all very pleased that our air companies have surmounted their difficulties in no uncertain fashion. I have no doubt that if the same attention were paid to the shipping interests our shipping companies, backed by the Government, would be as successful as Aer Lingus and the other newly-formed air companies that are flying the Atlantic.
It is important that greater national interest is taken in the volume of our exports to Britain and in transport to Britain because it is to England that we export most of our produce and the bulk of that produce is sent in ships. I believe that for many years to come it will continue to go by ships in spite of very great competition from air services.
We have an increasing volume of tourist traffic going by air which I believe was responsible for the improvement in the service provided for the cross-Channel tourist trade. It was very primitive up to two years ago. Our Irish tourists coming to and going from this country experienced great hardship on board some of these ships a couple of years ago. I am glad that because of the competition from Aer Lingus there is a considerable improvement. However, we should like to see greater improvement and I have no doubt that if we had an interest in cross-Channel shipping we would effect greater improvements thus helping the tourist industry which is of such great importance.
We also export large quantities of agricultural produce and cattle and it is only right that we should have some say in that export trade. Of course we import a great deal also and I would not claim that we should have all the say but we should have some say in that traffic. Last year I understand we imported £1½ million of English machinery. Let us hope that that large amount of machinery will be put to useful work, that it will be properly employed, because a great deal of it has been bought on the hire purchase system.
That does not arise on the Motion.
If there is to be a curtailment of our development in agriculture, there will be less shipping, fewer exports and fewer imports of machinery. If we curtail our exports of agricultural produce we will import less machinery because we will not require it. All that will need to be taken into consideration in exploring the possibility of developing the cross-Channel service. I would be very sorry if we were compelled to reduce our exports for want of a market but let us hope that common sense will prevail on all sides and that instead of curtailing our activities in the export, and import markets we will be encouraged to increase them, thereby increasing the volume of our exports and imports and thus giving more employment to the ships in which we hope we will have a valuable interest when this investigation has been carried out by the Minister.
I understand there is a ban on container traffic at the port of Dublin. It is more detrimental to Dublin than it is to any other port in Ireland. They are the sufferers as a result of that ban because it is responsible for diverting trade to other ports. I hope the dockers in Dublin will see the light of day and realise they are only injuring themselves by turning trade away from their own port in imposing such a foolish ban. This form of traffic gives very good service especially from Belfast to England. There is no reason why it should not give good service here. This trade should not be held up in any respect if it is to provide a better service for the people than we already have.
The question of going into this shipping business and exploring its possibilities is one that we must consider very carefully. I had the experience in Cork recently where a shipping company discontinued its service from Cork and the field is wide open now for this Government or any enterprising company to come along and provide a service which was in operation for a number of years. I would ask the Minister to consider that aspect of the situation.
Does the Deputy want him to go into a business that does not pay?
It was stated before the tribunal which inquired into these matters that many of the enterprises do not pay but they have kept going. Perhaps the time will come again when they will pay or perhaps the same thing will happen to some of the companies operating from Dublin if our imports and exports are reduced as a result of strong action taken by outside Governments. Such strong action could have a wide influence on the shipping trade in this country in the near future. We were all very sorry to see that shipping service from Cork discontinued and we hope that the same thing will not happen in Dublin.
It seems to me that there are periods when this country receives a setback. That usually happens in normal times when there is no war or danger of war and when the same demand for our products is not there. I have often heard it said in Cork that the best friends the farmers of Ireland ever had were the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin because they made it possible for our farmers to get a ready market for all the produce they could get from the land. In normal times the same opportunities are not there and we are only held as a spare wheel to fill the gap.
I am afraid the Deputy is travelling far from the motion which deals with cross-Channel shipping. The volume of trade does not arise.
On a point of order, Sir, may I ask why the Minister for Transport and Power is not present to deal with this matter? Deputy MacEoin had to forgo a function in Athlone to-day in order to attend to the business of this House and it would not be fair if the Minister for Transport and Power has gone to Athlone and neglected the business of the House.
It is not unusual for one Minister to sit in on behalf of another.
If Deputy General MacEoin places a social engagement in second place to the business of the House, the House is entitled to know if the Minister has gone to that social engagement.
The Deputy has been a Minister himself and I presume that it happened on occasion that some other Minister had to deputise for him.
Not to allow me to go to a dinner to which myfellow-Deputy could not get because of the business of the House.
Another important question is whether cross-Channel shipping will continue or not. Are our goods to be transported by air or will a tunnel be constructed under the Irish Sea which might perhaps wipe out all shipping? The time may come in our day when a connecting link between the two countries might wipe out all shipping and our goods would be transported under the Irish Sea in safety from air or submarine attack.
This is not very encouraging for Deputy Russell's motion.
I am seconding the motion, but I want to put those points before the people who are to investigate this matter of cross-Channel shipping: are ships to be the future method of transporting our imports and exports? If they are, we should have a vital interest in that industry and that is why I second the motion which I consider to be one of vital importance.
The motion is one which, to my mind, should be supported by everyone but there is underlying it another question. What control have we got over imports and how can we ensure that they will be carried in our own vessels? I had a funny experience in that matter last year. One of our Irish coasters owned by a Cobh man was laid up. He succeeded in getting the last quantity of foreign barley brought into this country and I was asked to find out the freight for him. I was given the name of a joker in Dublin, who was a dummy for a gentleman in London, who had to go to his high priest on the Continent, who was at that time insisting that every ton of artificial fertiliser brought in here should be brought in in Dutch bottoms.
That is the first matter we have to look after. The second question is: Who is going to control it? We have put some millions of money into Irish Shipping Limited and the Irish taxpayer is entitled, when his money is invested in that manner, to expect that those ships would be compelled, and I say compelled, to have their repairs and overhauls carried out in Irish dockyards where Irish dockyards are available.
That would not arise on this motion.
It certainly does, with respect.
The Chair says it does not.
If we are to secure more employment, a proportion of the cross-Channel trade should be brought under Irish control. I am pointing out what has happened already in connection with one body that is supposedly under Irish control.
The Chair is pointing out to the Deputy that the question of repairs to these ships does not arise at the moment.
One of the advantages that should follow the owning of a merchant fleet by the Irish Republic is employment on repairs to and refitting of these vessels. If that were done in our own country it would give employment to our own people.
The motion relates to cross-Channel shipping only.
They have sprung leaks.
If we put up another Irish shipping company to deal with cross-Channel shipping will they also be allowed the same latitude as those at present operating the cross-Channel service from the Port of Cork? They have earned their livelihood out of that port for the past 40 years. Ship after ship comes twice or three times a week into Cork. They get their trade there. They get their livelihood out of the port. Whenever any repairs or refitting are required, they pass down Rushbrooke Dockyard and sail over to John Bull.
The question of repairs does not arise on the motion which deals with cross-Channel shipping.
With all due respect, one of the advantages of possessing ships of our own to deal with cross-Channel trade or anything else is the amount of employment they will give to Irish people. Others might not judge it in that way but I do. It is a terrible thing that a large proportion of Irish money is invested even in cross-Channel boats if those boats are to be sent over to Britain for repairs and refitting. We are looking for employment in our own country for our own people. I have given one instance of what happens.
Where will we get the trade for those ships? Will any Government insist that imports into this country from Britain will come in Irish bottoms? If not, our Irish cross-Channel ships, owned by the Irish people, bought with money put up by the Irish people, will be like the case of the man who had the pluck to buy the ship in Cobh which is lying idle in the harbour while necessities for this country are imported in Dutch bottoms. These are the things we must look at before we say either "Yes" or "No" to a proposition of this size. Will this Government insist on that or will we have, as I have seen year after year in the town of Cobh, the shipwrights and the shipbuilders going over to South Shields to repair Irish vessels?
The question which arises and which strikes me in the first consideration of any proposal for the expenditure of Irish money on any project is: How many young Irishmen will that project keep at work in our own country? I have seen what the foreign vessels are doing. That is one thing in favour of Deputy Russell's motion. I have seen them going there for refitting every year and employment was not given by the B. & I. or any one of them in this country. They might give sops to Dublin but the port where they are earning their livelihood is being ignored. These are the matters which concern me in regard to any proposition of this type and these are the basic grounds on which I judge them.
I am in favour of the motion. I think there is a better hope of ensuring that all that type of work is carried out in this country if the ship is owned by Irishmen. I am afraid, from what I have seen in the past 12 months in regard to Irish Shipping that that is a forlorn hope.
I think the majority of Deputies will be only too anxious to support this motion. However, support in this House for the motion is not sufficient. The fact that the Government would seem to have accepted the principle of the motion is not sufficient if we take into consideration the views expressed by the Minister for Transport and Power when he addressed himself to this motion last week.
It may be that the Government have decided that it would be advisable for the sake of peace in the House to appear to accept the motion but it would be desirable that the House and the country should know as soon as possible what actual steps are being taken to implement the suggestions in the motion. The contribution last week from the Minister for Transport and Power was very enlightening, especially when he commented on our cross-Channel services with particular reference to the carrying of Irish people as tourists to and from Britain.
The Minister for Transport and Power referring to the possibility of an Irish company or an Irish group getting into the cross-Channel business pointed out as reported at column 191 of the Official Report of 10th instant: "If we were to take part in carrying passengers we must be certain that we shall be able to generate more passenger traffic that does not exist now and not merely make passenger traffic generally more pleasant for the existing traffic." That view is very enlightening. It discloses the mentality of the Minister for Transport and Power towards people who have to travel between Ireland and Britain. I refer specifically to our emigrants. To the Minister for Transport and Power and others in this House our emigrants on their way back from Britain to spend a few weeks with their parents and relations are tourists. They are also described as tourists by this statutory body known as Bord Fáilte. Make no mistake about it, the biggest percentage of the people who travel on the cross-Channel shipping between here and Britain are Irish people passing to and fro.
Whether we describe them as emigrants or potential tourists, one thing we must bear in mind is that they are Irish people and are entitled to travel under conditions which any civilised person would expect. For the last eight or 10 weeks we have had a wailing and whinging about the conditions under which horses were exported from this country. I wonder how many people in this House realise that during the month of December and early in January the thousands and thousands of Irish men, women and children who wish to return to Ireland on their holidays are forced to travel under the most shocking circumstances, crowding and so forth, on these cross-Channel services?
We very seldom hear any word of criticism by any crackpot society in this or any other country, any comment on or criticism of the conditions aboard some of these boats. But, of course, these people are only human beings. What is more, they are only Irish human beings and, as such, they are at the tail of the queue for any amenities that may be going. If we show so little responsibility for ensuring that there is a livelihood for our people here, the least we might do is to insist that when they have to travel out of the country or come back home on holidays they get decent travelling conditions. If we are not able to bring the pressure of public opinion to bear on the shipping companies which have the monopoly of that service at the moment, then we have a duty ourselves to enter into that field in some way or other and provide the services ourselves.
We certainly cannot allow to go unchallenged a statement of an alleged responsible Minister like the present Minister for Transport and Power that we are not concerned with making conditions pleasant for those who travel at the moment and that our aim, if we go into cross-Channel shipping, must be to ensure that we get a greater number of people travelling. He brushes aside as of no consequence the conditions under which our people travel at the moment. There is not the slightest doubt that the Minister for Transport and Power has never in his life crossed on any of those boats during the peak periods of travel between here and Britain. He has not a clue about the conditions, and it is time it were forcibly brought home to him in this House that now that he has responsibility as a Minister he should take active and practical steps to put an end to the shameful conditions that take place during peak periods of travel.
Mention was made of the export of our livestock to Britain. It is no harm for us to realise now and again that one of the key factors in Irish agriculture and industry and in our economy generally over the years has been lack of organisation in marketing arrangements. All along the line we have been lost for proper marketing and praper organisation to reach the market. Our principal export outside of human beings is livestock, and it is a fact that cannot be challenged that the arrangements for the export of our livestock do not lie in the hands of Irish men and women. They do not lie under the control of people in this country. I may say without any great danger of being contradicted that the arrangements for the export of our livestock are the responsibility of people outside this country. Even so far as our fairs and marts are concerned, the actual buyers come directly from across Channel, purchase and make the necessary shipping arrangements right through to the destination.
In the livestock question alone we have shown no genius for organisation or that we have the ability, if the necessity arose, to provide alternative means of transport for one of our most vital commodities. We could have a strangehold placed on us tomorrow morning by these cross-Channel agents, so far as livestock is concerned, and we have no answer. We are completely at their mercy. We have accepted that position for the past 40 years. It is not for me to suggest to the Government how they could have tackled that problem. If I were to suggest that a levy or tax over the years would have made available at this stage sufficient funds to allow us purchase control of existing companies or purchase docking facilities across Channel, it would be said I was suggesting that a tax should be put on the heads of all the cattle we export.
What I am really trying to emphasise is that no efforts whatever were made to leave us in an independent position if any difficulties arose. If the aim of this country is to make progress in the future—and the outlook for the next few years is anything but bright—and if we are not practically to disappear as a people, our agricultural economy will have to be dynamically expanded and our industrial programme, based on agriculture, will have to be thoroughly overhauled and expanded accordingly. That will mean that we must, at the minimum, treble or quadruple our exports of agricultural products or products based on agriculture.
Are we going to be in a position to meet our requirements and have our independence at the same time if and when we reach that stage of development? Judging by the facilities available at the present time, I do not think we shall. According as we expand in industry and agriculture—the advance so far has been very limited—the Government must make the necessary arrangements in regard to shipping, for the purpose of exports. Therefore, not only should the motion receive approval, but practical steps must be taken as a matter of urgency to implement the suggestions contained therein.
I would support the motion to a great extent. When I read it this evening I did not intend to contribute to the debate but, having heard some of the speeches here to-night, I consider that it would be a shame not to comment on the motion and, perhaps, on some of the speeches.
Deputy Corry wants to make sure that we have ships and that we would have the means to compel people who would be importing goods to this country to put their cargoes into those ships. Does it ever strike Deputy Corry that the British, who buy our cattle, could retaliate and say: "We want you to put the cattle into British ships"? There should be a more realistic approach to the motion. If it were possible for us to take over all the ships that, say, British Railways own, we should ask ourselves would they be a paying proposition or would we be taking on another C.I.E.? It is not enough for us to have ships with the Irish flag on them, to have them leaving Irish ports for British ports with livestock or passengers. What guarantee would we have that British Railways would meet us and provide the facilities to carry away the passengers and the livestock? I have been over this course. I have seen independent ships go into places where British Railways had control and British Railways' ships got the first of the wagons for the livestock and the first of the trains for their goods, and British Railways were right. We deeply resent that they should do that but I know what we would do if we had the reins in our hands.
They meet our aeroplanes.
Who?
The British.
Where?
Passengers.
Yes, but if their aeroplanes and our aeroplanes were in competition?
They are.
If they are in competition and there are only sufficient buses to take half the passengers away, you can guess the half that will be taken, whether they be the passengers carried by B.O.A.C. or those carried by Aer Lingus. I am in favour of this country having a certain number of ships, not for the purpose that Deputy Corry suggests, of trying to provide employment in the dockyards in Cobh, and not for the purpose suggested by Deputy Wycherley, of container traffic, but for the purpose of having a little orderly competition at times, for no other purpose.
Deputy Wycherley said here to-night that container traffic will not be handled at Dublin port. It has been suggested in the House and in the country that container traffic is the solution to all problems. Container traffic is handled at the ports of Waterford and Rosslare. If anyone wants to send goods in containers to any destination in Great Britain, the facilities are available.
In regard to passenger traffic, there are passengers who come into Dublin and passengers who come into Rosslare from Fishguard. Passengers used to come into the port of Waterford but that is no longer the case. Gentlemen came over some time ago from Great Britain and told us that they were losing a great deal of money on the passenger traffic into Waterford and that if that traffic were abolished and the boats used for container traffic it might be possible to make the boats pay. Waterford Harbour Commissioners and the Waterford Corporation met the representatives of British Railways. I was a member of these two bodies that agreed to that. I am very sorry that we did agree to it. We agreed to it under pressure. The pressure was this—they appeared to intend to take their traffic out of the port altogether. The reason that they had used the port was that there was a British Act of Parliament that compelled the Great Western Railway to continue its service in Waterford, as a result of which the Great Western Railway was allowed to open Rosslare. The agreement was that they should have a daily service out of Waterford. They got out of the daily service owing to the fact that during the economic war there was nothing to carry in or out of the country and they were able to plead that they were losing so much money that a three-day service would be justified. It was agreed that they could operate a three-day service.
We come down to the present day. The Minister in charge at that time was the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is now the Taoiseach. Instead of the Minister standing over the Waterford Harbour Commissioners and the Waterford Corporation at that time and pointing out to British Railways that their action would be a breach of a British Act of Parliament, he did what his successor, the Minister for Transport and Power, is doing tonight. He was not so much interested. We were left there. It was that lack of support from the Government and from the Minister of the day that put British Railways in a position to abandon the passenger traffic.
The Waterford port knows the value of the cross-Channel trade. We do not talk about it as if it were stinking fish. It is well that we have ships to take our produce away. When a ship was taken from Cork recently, they were hoping somebody would put a ship back again, whether it would be the Government or somebody else. When we have ships coming into our ports owned by British companies—not by Russians— by people who purchase most of our commodities from us we should be careful about what we do. We have a reasonable balance of trade position with Britain now as we also had in the past, and if the Government could say our overall trading position was as good as it has been with Britain in the past few years we would be all right.
Some Deputies have shown a great preference here for Continental countries and are very anxious to do business with them even though we can only sell them £1 million or £2 million worth while we buy £10 million or £12 million worth from them. When the final balance of trade figures are available at the end of this financial year it will be shown that Britain is the market we should look after. If we are sending our commodities to Britain, I agree with Deputy Russell that we should, as he said, try to secure a substantial proportion of the cross-Channel trade. I would be satisfied with even a reasonable proportion of it rather than a substantial proportion. If we are going to sell most of our agricultural produce to Britain there should not be such great objection to sending it over in British ships.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to passenger services. I have no brief for the B. & I. or anybody else but their boats are under great pressure in the summer season while in winter these enormous boats, costing up to £1 million, are lying up earning no money. I should not like to see the Irish Government having to suffer that situation; that would not be to our advantage. I am sure Ministers for Finance and Deputies are sufficiently shattered by the losses on C.I.E. without piling up more losses. It is not true to say nothing was done by anybody to endeavour to provide boats to carry our produce to Great Britain. The Staffords of Wexford built fine ships before the War and they traded from Irish ports to Birkenhead, obviously because the cattle were destined for Birkenhead and actually going to market in Birkenhead. They went also to Fishguard and other ports, but mainly to Birkenhead because if there were big offerings from the other shipping companies, say, the Great Western at the time, the Great Western waggons would be given to them. So far as the Minister who is here in place of the Minister for Transport and Power is concerned, I need not dwell very much on that because he would know about it.
A good deal of the overcrowding at Dún Laoghaire is due to the way traffic is routed from England. If a passenger asks for a ticket to Ireland he is routed through Dublin, even though the boats are crammed and even though there may be room on the Rosslare or other boats. I went to an office in London supported by funds from this House and I heard a man saying he wanted to go to Ireland. He was routed through Dublin at a time when, perhaps, he had to stand all night. It served him right when he did not look up his geography. The clerk inside the counter, sent over from this country, was not serving this country or serving the other ports; he was just sending passengers into Dublin.
This motion deserves the full consideration of the Minister. He should be here and should see that the whole matter is investigated and a report made to the House. The report might not be as rosy as many Deputies think but it should say whether the Government would be prepared to go into cross-Channel shipping in a reasonable way so that they would be able, at times, to create competition in freight rates—something nobody mentioned tonight—and in order that we might have a portion of the pool of shipping. I do not know who directs or looks after repairs to these boats but the fact that they would be under the control of the Irish Government is no guarantee that they would be refitted in Irish shipyards.
In replying briefly to the debate and particularly to the remarks of the Minister for Transport and Power I am glad to learn that the Government have no opposition to my motion in principle. This motion was originally put down about two years ago and I suggested that the substance of the motion received substantial support from the findings of the tribunal set up by the Minister's predecessor to inquire into cross-Channel freights. Among recommendations made by that tribunal was the suggestion that this country should obtain an interest in cross-Channel shipping. Two years ago the then Minister went even further by saying that some action in respect of the extension of Irish control of shipping was proceeding and that he did not intend that that action should be impeded in any way by the fact that the inquiry was taking place.
The Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers, in his contribution to this debate, gave no indication whatever that anything had been done over the past two-and-a-quarter years to substantiate the trenchant statement made by the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, in October, 1957. At that time I certainly got the impression that the whole question of extending Irish control of cross-Channel passenger and goods traffic was receiving the active and positive attention of the Government. As we have received no statement in this House during the past two years to indicate the outcome of these negotiations I for one must come to the conclusion that the whole matter was largely a blind.
I appreciate the fact that to take an interest in the present shipping services would be a very difficult and possibly very expensive affair but, as the terms of my motion suggest, I thought it advisable in present circumstances that we, allegedly at least an independent economic unit, should have some measure of control over one of the life lines of traffic, our cross-Channel shipping service. I suggested the matter was of such importance that the Government itself might institute an enquiry and report to this House in due course. The Minister in the course of his contribution said:
I see no purpose in investing money in any existing undertaking unless we can be sure that freight costs will come down.
He went on to say then:
If we were to take part in carrying passengers we must be certain that we generate more passenger traffic... not merely make passenger traffic generally more pleasant for the existing traffic.
If that standard had been applied to a number of undertakings in which this country has invested substantial sums of money over the past 25 or 30 years, a lot of this investment would never have taken place. I find it strange that the Government has not been activated to a greater extent in seeing in what way we could share in this enormous cross-Channel business which has been going on between the two countries since the middle of the last century. It should not be forgotten that the concentration of the ownership of virtually the whole of the cross-Channel trade mainly in British hands is an evolution that has taken place over the past century. During the last century there was a number of small Irish-owned cross-Channel shipping companies which operated from a number of the Irish ports particularly in the West of Ireland. Due to changing circumstances such as the building of the railways and the development of larger British shipping interests these were either crushed out or bought out and the present system evolved where the entire control and carriage of cross-Channel trade is in the hands of British-owned companies of which two, British Railways and Coast Lines own by far the substantial part.
I agree with Deputy Lynch it seems senseless to invest in an undertaking that is obviously losing money, and indeed the Minister in his statement made a somewhat similar point, that if we could not bring down the costs of cross-Channel trade we should not invest in it at all. If we do not exercise some measure of control over this vital link, have we any assurance costs will not continue to go up as they have been going up particularly in recent years? It is well to remember it was the increasing costs, eight increases in succession, that galvanised the previous Minister, Deputy Lemass, into instituting the enquiry into cross-Channel freight. That enquiry has been made.
When speaking on the motion to set up this tribunal the Minister promised us that when the facts were known action would be taken. These facts have been known for the past nine months. I should like some indication from the Minister as to what action he proposes to take. As the Minister rightly said, we are living in an era of change and no change has been more rapid than that in transport. Undoubtedly in a few years' time new methods of cross-Channel shipping services will be developed. As an indication of the possible developments it is no harm to remember that a year or two ago a company in the Six Counties set up a cross-Channel ferry service which is now running very satisfactorily. Another one was set up and was, within a short space of time, taken over by British Railways to ensure that its effective competition would be completely nullified.
I do not think we can wait for the existing cross-Channel shipping companies to introduce new types of cross-Channel service which would compete and compete very severely with their own shipping lines. It would be too much to hope that any service would deliberately underwrite an alternative service which would heavily reduce its income. If this ferry service, which could be developed between Great Britain and Ireland, is to be established and be run efficiently we must take the initiative. The costs of providing a ferry service are far lower than the building of conventional cross-Channel liners, and the Government might at least investigate the cost of going into this trade. The costs of acquiring the necessary facilities would be far lower than trying to establish the conventional type of liner, and if we could not link up with the British railways system on the other side we would be able to link up with the many road haulage contractors over there.
It is all very well to say: "Let the British run the service as long as it does not pay," but it has happened in the past and it is not too ridiculous to imagine that it might happen in the future, that our interests and the interests of Britain might not be coincidental. In that case I should like some of the Deputies who advocate leaving things as they are to tell me whose interests would be served if the British interests clashed with ours and we were left completely at the mercy of British carriers.
It is sometimes forgotten that the trade done on this cross-Channel route is very substantial. The total trade over the past seven years in goods between Great Britain and Ireland has averaged in value between £170,000,000 and £180,000,000, and some million and a half passengers have travelled annually backwards and forward on this route. This is a tremendous undertaking in which we should take a greater part and even if it does not show a direct profit, there certainly must be substantial indirect profits made by people who service these ships and the railways that tie up with the ships.
It has been estimated that the percentage content of transport, particularly on the shipping routes, is about 10 per cent. of the total costs of the goods concerned. If this is true there must be something between £15,000,000 and £17,000,000 paid from year to year to these carrier companies. Some of this money finds its way into repairs and maintenance almost entirely on the other side of the Channel. If this country had some participating interest in these services a good deal of that money would be spent on this side of the Channel.
I should like to suggest also that in any development of this nature there should be a joint operation between this State and the Six Counties. We live in the one country and on both sides of the Border we have problems in common which should be an encouragement to Governments on both sides to join together and provide an efficient and up-to-date service between this country and Britain. Whatever political developments take place, we must continue to trade with Great Britain, and I would like to think that that trade will be to the benefit of the people on both sides of the Channel. If it is, one of the vital necessities for this country is that we should be able to provide a shipping service which will be cheap and efficient and available at all times, whether run at a profit or not.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion No. 26 not moved.