asked the Minister for Finance if, as he has recently indicated several times that capital projects must take their place by order of priority, he will state what place in priority in relation to housing and other necessary capital projects was taken by the investment of between £700,000 and £800,000 in a hotel chain which has just been announced.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Capital Projects Priority.
46.
I presume the Deputy is referring to the recent press announcement that Aer Lingus is to take up shares in Kingsley-Windsor Hotels Ltd. This investment will be financed by Aer Lingus, from non-Exchequer sources, which are not available for other capital programme purposes such as housing. No conflict of priorities therefore arises.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that Aer Lingus, whose borrowing is guaranteed by the Government, are in a better borrowing position than the Government and that, in fact, something that could be borrowed by Aer Lingus to buy Kingsley-Windsor Hotels Ltd. could not be borrowed by the Government to build houses?
That is fatuous.
It is not fatuous. It is factual and the Minister knows it and using a word which bears no relation to it will not stop me.
So far as I remember, there was no division taken in this House when a capital provision of £71.5 million was passed. It means that some of the priorities in their capital programme at that time will have to be put back or put off. They will first raise money, £747,000 to be exact, by the issue of new shares.
Surely if that money is available it is also available to the Government for other purposes?
It is not.
Certainly it is.
Is it not a fact that the Government have waived the interest on capital repayments from Aer Lingus to leave them in a position that they could buy aeroplanes and various other things and now they are putting it into hotels? Is not that a fact?
That is not true.
It is true.
It is not true. There is a question down to me on this matter and I will deal with it very fully.
That is all right.