The £3 million here provided can be used either for the building of houses or factories?
Committee on Finance. - Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited (Amendment) Bill, 1961 — Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Yes.
Has the original £1½ million been used?
The capital issued to the company up to 30th June amounted to £1,358,000 and of that amount £939,000 was expended on factory buildings and £396,000 on dwellings, so that the amount of capital available until we pass this Bill is very small. The capital has been almost exhausted.
Perhaps this section is as good a section as any to enable the Minister to clear up a point he was not able to clear up before in regard to the lost factory. The Minister will remember that on Second Reading I referred to the report in which it is stated on page 14 that 22 factory units had been built or put into construction. The Minister when speaking referred to only 15 existing bays, a special bay and five under construction, which makes 21. Where is the lost factory, between the 31st March, 1960, and the time the Minister was speaking the other day?
The lost one was a boilerhouse for the factory. It was one of the bays, one house for all the factories. That accounted for the discrepancy.
Is the Minister really serious in saying that when the directors in their report said that, in addition to a special factory for a piano manufacturer, 22 factory units had been built or put into construction, that is not true?
One of them was a boilerhouse but there are five under construction now. The situation changes the whole time.
Of course it changes but the Minister has lost one. Either the report was true or the Minister's statement was wrong. Quite obviously the Minister does not know what is happening at Shannon.
I know all about it.
It is a pity the Minister does not communicate his information to the House. The report of the Directors said categorically that in addition to a special factory for a piano manufacturer 22 factory units have been built. That is on page 14, the second paragraph, if the Minister would take the trouble to read it. Twenty-two and one makes twenty-three. The Minister came into the House the other day and in his speech, I think it was in paragraph 5, said that there were 15 factory bays, a special factory bay, and one under construction. Surely, the Minister can appreciate that 15 and 5 and 1 make 21? There were 23 before, fifteen months before the Minister spoke. If there were 23 fifteen months ago, why are there only 21 now? What has happened to the missing factories?
The missing one was the boilerhouse.
All right, but where is the second one? I am giving the Minister the boiler room although I do not accept his explanation.
Was there a fellow making bowling alleys?
No, this is purely buildings.
The truth about it is that the situation changes.
Of course it changes.
Existing factories take extensions off the factory bays.
Buildings go up; they do not come down. I am not saying that there are more now than in 1960. There are fewer now, according to the Minister, than in 1960.
There is something crazy about that, because there are not fewer factories.
Either the Minister came in and gave the Dáil wrong information or the Board of Directors produced a wrong report. They cannot both be right. I raised this with the Minister last week, but the Minister has not bothered to acquaint himself with the position.
The position is that there are 22 factory bays: 16 of the factories are occupied, five building, and there is one which was built by the firm itself, making a total of 22. That is the position at the moment.
Would the Minister read the report? As of the 31st March, 1960, in addition to a special factory, there are 22 factory units — one special and twenty-two makes 23. There is still one missing, even after allowing for the boilerhouse. Five and fifteen and one and the boilerhouse still makes 22.
I wish the Deputy would allow me to invite him to come to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company and he would see the whole position.
I would prefer the Minister to give us the correct information. Who is right? Is it the Minister or the Board of Directors?
I think perhaps the confusion is due to the building constructed by the Rippen Company. That building together with the boilerhouse makes 23.
How?
Sixteen factories occupied, five building, one being built by the firm itself, which makes 22, and then there is the boilerhouse.
The Minister when he came in, said 15 had been completed and a special factory, which makes 16, plus five building, which makes 21, and a boilerhouse, which makes 22. But there were 23 on 31st March, 1960. Has the Minister not got this report?
I have.
Would the Minister mind reading——
The Deputy knows it is out of date. Work has gone on since.
Of course it is out of date. But the Minister blew up a factory between——
I hope I did not.
Where has he lost it?
I think the confusion arises over whether you include the boilerhouse and the factory built by the piano manufacturers. That accounts for the discrepancy in some way or another.
No. Has the Minister last week's Dáil Debates in front of him?
I am afraid I have not but I take the Deputy's word as to what I said. I did not intend to exaggerate.
Here is what the Minister said:
Up to 30th June, 1961, 15 factory bays had been completed together with a special factory ...
— that is 15 and one — 16 — is that not so including the special factory? The Minister said: "At present five factory bays are under construction." Fifteen, the special one and the five factory bays under construction make a total of 21. The Minister did not mention the boilerhouse and I will give him a present of the boilerhouse. We still arrive at 22 and I do not know how there are only 22 there now when there were 23 there 15 months ago.
The Deputy's mathematics may be better than mine. That is all I can say.
I am afraid they are.
I did not intend to create a false impression.
Perhaps the Minister will give us some explanation of the missing factory before the Final Stage tomorrow.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: That Section 3 stand part of the Bill.
Under Section 3, it is proposed to increase from £½ million to £1¼ million the grants available to the company to meet the running expenses of the company. Could the Minister elaborate a little on what these running expenses are supposed to be?
Running expenses comprise the cost of managing the whole concern and, secondly, they include sums spent on publicity to advertise Shannon Airport, to advertise the facilities there, to advertise the catering and shopping facilities at Bunratty Castle, to advertise in co-ordination with Bord Fáilte and Irish International Airlines tours commencing at Shannon. Finally, the expenses include the amount of money required to pay grants to new industries.
To pay grants to new industries?
Grants are provided, as in the case of Foras Tionscal, where deemed suitable, to factories setting up production in Shannon.
Are they on exactly the same rate as the Foras Tionscal grants?
They are on a somewhat varying rate.
Are they more or less, if they vary?
Roughly on the same basis, I would say.
Surely the Minister is able to say more than roughly?
It depends on the nature of the factory. Some of the factories there have set up with little or no grants.
How many have been set up with greater grants than Foras Tionscal would give?
I do not think any have received more than the maximum grants provided by Foras Tionscal.
Are those grants tabled in the same way as the Foras Tionscal grants are?
Tabled how?
On the Table of the House, in a quarterly or six-monthly report — I forget which it is. Under the Undeveloped Areas Act, a report has to be tabled which gives the exact amount.
The total amount provided in grants is given.
It is out of Section 3 that the grants are given?
Yes, expenditure out of grants-in-aid. For example, after 30th June, the grants to industries totalled £216,000, of which £85,000 was for buildings, £120,000 for machinery and some £11,000 for training, making a total of £216,000.
When may we expect to receive the report of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company for the year up to March, 1961? This is August.
About the end of August the report will be available.
It would seem to me that this would be the appropriate section on which to table an amendment to ensure that the Shannon Free Airport Development Company would be in exactly the same position as Foras Tionscal and would have to give to the House by periodic report the appropriate information about grants as the other companies have to give and as has to be given under the Industrial Grants Act. With your permission, Sir, I should like to give notice that I propose to put in such an amendment for Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section which provides for £400,000 by way of loan by the Minister for Finance for the building of dwellings for workers employed on the Industrial Estate. I gather that in the case of a house costing £2,800, that sum of £2,800 will be abated by so much as is received by the company as grants under the Housing Acts and then they will be entitled to borrow one-half of the remainder of the cost under this section from the Treasury.
Yes, and one half from the capital of the company, but having deducted such grants as are available from the Department of Local Government. That is correct.
On a £2,800 house, assuming the grant available from the Department of Local Government amounts to £400——
It depends on whether it is taken into account on a slum clearance basis or not.
It cannot be on a slum clearance basis. Assuming it is £400, that reduces the cost to £2,400. Am I to understand that the company may borrow, under Section 4, from the Minister for Finance, £1,200 in respect of each such house erected?
That is the idea, yes.
May I take it "workers" includes clerical workers as well as manual workers, that any person in employment on the estate will be deemed to be a worker for the purposes of this section?
Yes. The workers are of various types from craftsmen and foremen-type of personnel down.
When the company lets to a factory a residential dwelling, is there any provision about the rent at which the factory shall sublet it to the worker?
I think the worker pays whatever the rent is. I do not think there is any profit element.
I take it the loans will be secured on the value of the houses?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
What will be the rate of interest charged on these advances?
It is whatever the current rate is — I think at the moment it is five and a half per cent.
Will the Minister oblige me by telling me the difference between subsection (1) and subsections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Principal Act? I have not the Principal Act here.
To which section is the Deputy referring?
Section 5. Section 5 refers to a difference between subsection (1) and subsections (2) and (3) of the Principal Act.
The section provides for the application of subsections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Principal Act. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Principal Act reads:
For the purpose of providing moneys for the sums advanced out of the Central Fund under this section, the Minister for Finance may borrow from any person any sum or sums, and for the purpose of such borrowing he may create and issue securities bearing such rate of interest and subject to such conditions as to repayment, redemption or any other matter as he thinks fit, and shall pay the moneys so borrowed into the Exchequer.
Subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Principal Act reads:
The principal of and interest on any securities issued by the Minister for Finance under this section and the expenses incurred in connection with the issue of such securities shall be charged on and payable out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof.
Is this section merely to say that the sums raised under this Act are to be paid in the same way as those charged under the Principal Act?
That is so.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I wonder how much of this section is just a pious hope.
I take it the interest will fluctuate or is there to be a permanent rate of interest?
The rate fluctuates according to the prevailing rates of interest.
There is a very good theory for the Minister for Finance in subsection (2) but it rarely goes beyond theory.
I believe there have been some falterings by the wayside in years gone by.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 2nd August, 1961.