Vol. 221 No. 1
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if his attention has been drawn to a report that an increase of five and ten per cent for different types of traffic will be applied by British Railways on 13th March and on the following day by the B & I Line; and if he has any statement to make on the matter.
13.
(South Tipperary) and Mr. T. O'Donnell asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he had prior consultation regarding, and if he gave prior agreement to, the proposed five to ten per cent increase by the B & I Line on livestock and goods rates; and if he will comment on the matter.
14.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power the estimated loss by the B & I Line for the year 1965.
15.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power the number of cattle carried by the B & I Line (a) in the year 1964 and (b) in the year 1965.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 together. The B & I Board notified me beforehand of their intention to increase freight rates and of their reasons for doing so.
The company's losses for 1965 are estimated at £51,000 and are due principally to increased labour costs, mainly for sea-going personnel and for dockers in Britain, and to reduced receipts for cattle exports in 1965. I am satisfied that the increases in rates are fully justified by commercial considerations and I have, therefore, reaffirmed to the board my original directive that they should conduct the affairs of the company on strictly commercial lines. Deputies will remember that the agreement of Coast Lines Ltd. to the sale of the B & I was subject to the firm assurance given to them in writing on behalf of the Government that the company would be managed on strictly commercial lines.
Details of the traffic carried by individual shipping companies are normally treated as confidential for commercial reasons. This consideration does not have practical importance in present conditions in relation to cattle exports and I can, therefore, tell the Deputy that the numbers of cattle exported by the B & I in 1964 and 1965 were 210,919 and 145,042 respectively.
There is no statutory authority by which direct control could be exercied over the cross-Channel freight rates charged by British Railways or other shipping companies nor would it be feasible to exercise such control on a unilateral basis.
I may say that the B & I Board were informed beforehand by British Railways of their intention to increase rates and decided to limit the increases they themselves had in mind to the same level and to introduce them about the same time in order to avoid confusion for shippers particularly in the case of through-rated traffic to and from internal destinations in Britain.
In view of the necessity for stability preached by the Government for the past few months and, furthermore, to prevent increasing the cost of living and the danger of pricing ourselves out of the export market, does the Minister think it desirable to allow this to happen at the present time?
The whole question of prices control has been made absolutely clear by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and why it has been imposed on a wide variety of commodities. If it is absolutely proved that the company will engage in a loss, it is quite inevitable that some of these prices will rise. A great part of the increase in these rates is due to inflation in Great Britain and to the very great increases in dock charges for which we are not responsible. When, recently, I spoke on CIE, I made it clear that, although the Government would wish to survey the operations and to exercise some control over the costs of all State companies, there was little we could do in regard to international charges imposed by State companies. The B & I have to act as a commercial company and it earns foreign-based sterling, like other companies. Foreign goods imported here and goods now transported in England also bear increased charges. If there are increased charges on the railways in Britain, the degree to which this imposes additional charges on our customers is limited by charges that have already taken place in Great Britain and which affect our competitors.
We may expect this year the export of the same, or a greater, number of cattle as last year. That would mean that the company would carry perhaps an additional 60,000 or 70,000 cattle within the next six or eight months. Would that not affect the losses? Furthermore, if this continues, we shall surely be consumed by the flames of inflation which the Minister speaks so much about at times.
It is anticipated that there will be an increase in cattle exports which I hope will favourably affect the position of the company. The B & I needs to earn a very considerable surplus in order to be a fully commercial organisation. The Deputy need not have any fear in his mind that there will be an excess or surplus in the current year.
I have no fear of that.
Would the Minister be kind enough to tell us why the Government require a private firm to give to the Minister for Industry and Commerce three months' notice of intention to increase prices while a Government-managed firm can increase their prices overnight without giving notice to anybody except to the Minister for Transport and Power?
Confusion would take place if these increases in freight rates went up at different times.
"Confusion": that is the answer.
Was any application made to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make these increases?
The B & I informed me of their intention and asked me what I thought about it.
What did the Minister for Industry and Commerce think about it? Is this in breach of the regulations made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
He has to keep prices down as far as possible.
Will this not price our exports out of the British market?
Was the Minister for Industry and Commerce consulted beforehand?
Yes.
No.
It is in breach of the Order. There is one law for State companies and another law for the public.
The Government do not practise what they preach now about stability and keeping down the cost of living.
