asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will state, in respect of the last five years, the services from Waterford harbour discontinued by British Railways; the consequent loss of income to the Harbour Board; and the amount of dues paid annually (a) by British Railways and (b) by Belferry Limited.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Waterford Harbour Services.
1.
I have been informed by Waterford Harbour Commissioners that British Railways did not, in the past five years, discontinue any services from Waterford harbour; there was, therefore, no loss of income on that account.
The amount paid in harbour dues by individual concerns is confidential to them.
2.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether British Railways will make any financial contribution towards the cost of the Waterford harbour works approved by him; and why he has directed that the money to be granted shall not be expended on providing a berth for another concern which has offered to contribute £100,000.
3.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction in Waterford with his decision to provide Waterford Harbour Board with a grant amounting to only 58 per cent of the sum requested and with the limitations as to use imposed; and if he will meet a deputation to further discuss the matter with a view to having the whole situation and the future development of that important port reconsidered.
I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
In accordance with Government policy, State grants for harbour improvements to meet new or expanding trade are given only for essential works which cannot be financed otherwise. Waterford Harbour Commissioners sought a grant of £365.000 towards the cost of an improvement scheme consisting of:—
(a) the reconstruction and extension of the North Wharf at an estimated cost of £430,000, and
(b) a new container terminal at an estimated cost of £300,000.
It emerged that the new container terminal was to be provided for a private consortium on a basis of absolute priority and the exclusion of all competitors. The estimates submitted by the Harbour Commissioners indicated that the terminal should be a fully self-supporting project. In these circumstances the Government considered that a State grant was neither necessary nor appropriate in respect of the proposed container terminal.
The Government approved a grant not exceeding 50 per cent of the cost of the reconstruction and extension of the North Wharf subject to a maximum of £215,000. These works will provide new deep sea facilities and a container berth intended for the use of the long established British Railways services between Fishguard and Waterford. It will also provide relief for shipping services using the South Wharf. The estimates submitted by Waterford Harbour Commissioners showed that the reconstruction of the wharf, as planned, would not be self-supporting and would require State aid. None of the shipping services using the North Wharf is contributing directly to the cost but will, of course, pay harbour dues.
The consortium proposes to provide an interest-free loan of £100,000 repayable over 12 years towards the cost of the private container terminal. The consortium is, I understand, providing the corresponding terminal in Wales at its own expense.
I am aware that the Harbour Commissioners are dissatisfied with the Government decision. They have asked me to meet them to discuss the whole matter and I have arranged to do so at the end of the month.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the people of Waterford are concerned that the State here should apparently be favouring a British State-owned company against the interests of an Irish concern which during several years past has proved a success at Waterford port when in fact the British company were withdrawing services from the port in question?
The reply to Question No. 1 establishes the fact that the same number of services is being provided by the company which the Deputy says have been withdrawing services. The question that arises here, and it is a subject which will be discussed by the Minister at his meeting with Waterford Harbour Commissioners, is that of providing services where services would be exclusively for one company to the exclusion of all competitors.
Is the position now not that State aid is to be provided for a British concern and that nothing is to be provided for the benefit of a concern which has traffic through Waterford port six times greater than that of the concern the Government are seeking to help?
The money is being provided for the extension of the North Wharf at Waterford which is not reserved to any particular company.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that several people, including the Mayors of Waterford, Clonmel and Kilkenny, have expressed dissatisfaction with the Government's decision and that nobody is more embarrassed than the man who won a by-election on promises which have now proved false because the Government have failed to honour them?
The allocation of a grant of £215,000 towards the improvement of the North Wharf in Waterford is no bottle of smoke.
The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that there was more than a bottle of smoke involved which had no small part in winning the by-election, and in fairness to Deputy Browne, the least the Government should do is to fulfil one of the by-election promises—just one promise of all they have made in the past 20 years.
The Deputy knows the whole question is being looked into again.
Surely that is not so?
The grant was in excess of what is usually given.
If Fine Gael had won the by-election, the Government would have given the full amount to try to win the people back. The Government are showing only contempt for the people.
Could I just reply to Deputy Ryan?
No. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
He can ask a question, surely?
Can I ask a question?
The Deputy may ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we in Waterford Harbour Commissioners are very grateful to the Department for their allocation? The only thing that is wrong— and it may be corrected when the deputation meet the Minister on 29th May when everything will be settled to everybody's satisfaction—is the matter of the conditions——
That is not very interrogatory.