Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 11 Dec 1987

Vol. 376 No. 8

Supplementary and Additional Estimates, 1987. - Vote 40: Tourism and Transport.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1987, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Tourism and Transport, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain grants and grants-in-aid.

During the course of 1987 the House has had opportunities for debate on the Estimate for my Department and on a number of pieces of legislation relating to the affairs of the Department. In the circumstances I propose to be brief in my remarks on the purposes for which this Supplementary Estimate is required. As Deputies will have noted, this Estimate is a token Estimate for £1,000. It arises principally to provide for a new subhead and to provide additional sums under subheads A1, A3, A5, B4 and B6. While the total additional amount required under these subheads amounts to £1,036,000, there is an offset of £535,000 in savings on other subheads and increased appropriations-in-aid of £500,000.

One hundred and five thousand pounds is required for the introduction of a new subhead, D11, which would provide expenditure for an insurance premium to cover Air Navigation Services. In the course of the year I decided it would be prudent for the State to take insurance cover in respect of air navigation services provided by the Department so as to ensure that the State's liability would be covered in the event of it ever being found that, for example, an aircraft accident was attributable in whole or in part or fault or negligence on the part of the Department or its employees.

The State carried its own insurance in this area prior to 1987. The sanction of the Minister for Finance was obtained and the necessary insurance cover is effective since September last. Payment of two quarterly instalments arise in 1987 at an approximate cost of £105,000 which allows for currency fluctuation. A substantial part of the cost of the annual premium is recoverable under user charges.

An additional amount of £256,000 is required under subhead B6 — currency exchange losses on certain Industrial Credit Corporation foreign borrowings for tourism development. In 1981, the European Investment Bank-Industrial Credit Company loan facilities for capital development in the hotel sector were introduced by the then Minister. These facilities were subsequently extended to other sectors of the tourist industry.

The scheme is administered by the ICC which also operates a working loan scheme for tourism. Under the terms of the schemes any exchange losses arising after 1982 are to be met out of Exchequer funds. Because of fluctuations in the international currency exchange rates the original allocation of £520,000 for this year have proved inadequate.

On subhead B4 an additional sum of £55,000 is required. Under this subhead, Bord Fáilte assist in the development of a wide range of amenities and facilities of both a commercial and non-commercial nature. Many of the grants are aimed at encouraging the improvment of facilities for such activities as watersports and fieldsports and in the provision of amenities such as cultural and historical projects and tourist trails and signposting. The usual level of grant aid is 50 per cent. Bord Fáilte now require an additional £55,000, bringing total expenditure in the year to £1.241 million, in order to meet commitments already entered into. The additional £55,000 will be off-set by a saving from Bord Fáilte of the same amount under subhead B2 — development of holiday accommodation.

An additional sum of £300,000 is required under subhead A1 for the provision of wages, salaries and allowances of staff of my Department. The allocation to my Department for this purpose was £700,000 short of requirements but through a series of measures including the non-filling of vacancies, the grant of career breaks and a severe curtailment of overtime a saving of £400,000 on this amount has been achieved. The remaining sum of £300,000 is now being sought.

An additional £70,000 is required under subhead A3, travelling and incidental expenses and an additional £250,000 under subhead A5 — postal and telecommunications services. These additional sums are required for the Air Navigation Services Offices and the Meteorological Service of my Department. The Air Navigation Services Office is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the safety and regularity of civil aviation while the Meteorological Service provides, inter alia, weather forecast information for aircraft in flight, for shipping, fisheries and other marine interests and for the general public.

Increased usage of telecommunication equipment in these areas has resulted in higher expenditure. In addition arrears of charges totalling £170,000 in the A5 subhead relating to 1986 became due for payment in 1987. In relation to A3, costs for 1985 and 1986 totalling £60,000 approximately were recouped to the Department of Defence which operates the scheme of medical tests on behalf of my Department for commercial and private pilots. Most of the cost of these services is recovered through user charges. I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

This Supplementary Estimate is a curious one. I note in particular, the provision for insurance premium for the Air Navigation Services. I very much appreciate the necessity for it given this Government's record in the provision and support for Air Navigation Services. I am referring, in particular, to the aviation service at Ballygirreen and the marine radio service at Malin Head. The Government have decided to give less money to these services than what is required and in so doing they are not alone putting jobs at risk — and there are 150 jobs in these areas — but are putting lives at risk also. This is extremely serious.

I want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister that rather than applying the blanket embargo on public service recruitment right across the board to lift the embargo in relation to recruitment for Ballygirreen and Malin Head. By bringing this insurance premium before the House and asking the House to agree to the moneys for it, I am sure the Minister appreciates the serious situation arising at present because of undermanning in the service. There is a great risk involved and a need to pay a high insurance premium.

The Minister said it was prudent for the State to take insurance cover in respect of air navigation services provided by the Department so as to ensure that the State's liability would be covered in the event of it ever being found that an aircraft accident was attributable in whole or in part to fault or negligence on the part of the Department or their employees. There is a real danger of that occurring and the Minister is wise to take out such insurance cover but that is not the way to correct the fault in this case. The real problem arises because of a lack of manpower. That is the question the Minister, and the Government, should be addressing rather than taking out insurance cover. I am sure the Minister is aware that when there is lack of manpower inefficiencies follow.

It is worth recording that Ballygirreen has an excellent international reputation. All airlines from the northern hemisphere have been full of praise for the service provided by Ballygirreen. The problem at that station is causing great concern to the 150 employees whose jobs are at risk. Thousands of lives may be put at risk if sufficient money is not provided to upgrade the service by installing sufficient equipment.

One of the items discussed at the Washington Summit was improved transport facilities between New York and Moscow. I understand that Pan American Airways propose operating a 747 on a direct flight from New York to Moscow and that the same company have made a bid to run the duty-free shop at Moscow Airport. The Minister, who has responsibility for Aer Rianta, will be aware that that company were involved in negotiations with the authorities in Moscow with a view to running the duty-free shop there. The Minister should deal with that matter immediately. I do not want the Shannon Region, Aer Rianta and Ireland losing out because of a lack of action on the part of the Minister. We all welcome the improvement in East-West relations as a result of the Washington Summit but we must be concerned about our own interests. Mr. Gorbachev may have complimented Ireland on her neutrality when passing over the country but one must question the sincerity of that compliment. I would like to know the reason for paying that compliment because at the Washington Summit he may have reached an agreement with the Americans that will affect us. We should show we are not prepared to accept such treatment. We must remember we have friends nearer home than Moscow.

The drop in value of the US dollar will have serious repercussions on our tourist industry. I have no doubt that next year it will suffer if the slide in the value of the US currency continues. There is an onus on the Minister, Bord Fáilte and SFADCo, to do everything possible to encourage American tourists to visit Ireland. The drop in value of the dollar will benefit us in one way in that the money allocated to Bord Fáilte and SFADCo to promote tourism in the US will have greater purchasing power. The Department should ensure that that money is spent shrewdly and on a different package to that envisaged initially. There should be greater use of television advertising because it is more beneficial than some of the activities that Bord Fáilte, Aer Lingus and other bodies engage in in the US.

To date we have not received any information about the transfer of responsibility from Bord Fáilte to SFADCo for the mid-west region. Tourist interests in those counties are concerned that they will be discriminated against. I understand that the experts employed by Shannonside will not be re-employed in the tourism promotion field by SFADCo. I accept that the latter company had a tourist interest prior to this but it was a very specialised and narrow one. That concern excelled in their area but I would be concerned if they moved into tourism promotion for the region without employing a number of tourist experts. I am concerned about the plight of the small hoteliers, owners of guesthouses and farmhouses in the area who must call on the services of officials who are expert in tourist promotion. There is a danger that they will not have anybody to call on next year. The Minister should ensure that the mid-west region is not downgraded.

The Minister will be aware that SFADCo's responsibility for the Bunratty Folk Park will conflict with the operations of those responsible for Kilfenora, Corofin Heritage Centre and Ailwee Caves. SFADCo's interest in the Curraghchase Caravan Park near Foynes would be in conflict with other caravan parks in the mid-west region. The Bunratty, Knappogue and Kinvara Castle entertainment centres will be in conflict with other centres that SFADCo will be expected to promote. The Minister should ensure that centres where SFADCo do not have an interest are not discriminated against.

Mr. Keating

I should like to make several points on what the Minister has said. First, I consider this general approach to approving expenditure of public moneys almost an absolute waste of parliamentary time, rubber stamp type discussions at a remove of light years from public interest or relevance, filling in the heel of a week. We should find some better way of doing the business. Perhaps a committee of the House would look at these Estimates seriously line by line when they come up and let us not have this absolute nonsense of a debate not just today but every other day for many years. I know what it is there to achieve and whom it is there to facilitate. Generally it is a disservice and I see no or very little advantage in it. I recommend strongly that we find some other way of examining public moneys. I do not want to convey or be associated with conveying the impression that we are seriously evaluating the efficacy, efficiency or effectiveness of public expenditure by this rubber stamping approach.

Secondly, I ask the Minister to consider, as a former member of a committee who took seriously, as he himself did, questions relating to public expenditure, the possibility of having established or reestablishing a committee who would look at this in a detailed, systematic way over a period of time. They should look at the Estimates of expenditure, how the money is being spent, what the demands for Supplementary Estimates are based on and how they are justified. This Supplementary Estimate does not justify any of the requests it makes. It purports to explain them but does not justify them. I would prefer a studied approach to this.

The third thing I want to say relates to transport in general. The key question in transport relates not to a Supplementary Estimate seeking additional sums to top up existing programmes but a radical reform of our whole transport policy. Lest I be accused of tossing off a cliché with no meaning, I am talking essentially about a total review both of our philosophy in relation to the provision of public transport and the co-ordination of elements within the present fabric of public transport. The philosophy is that public transport is provided by the State and anything else is at best suspect and at worst not to be approved or recommended. That is outdated and extremely expensive as a way of doing business. I recommended that the Minister initiate a new policy which would result in a joint venture approach between the responsibility the State has to oversee the fabric of public transport and the resources available in public and private hands in the community, so that we would have a new and dynamic public transport facility and not as at present a somewhat deficient public transport service which is often maligned quite wrongly because it is being asked to do a job which it simply cannot do by virtue of lack of definition of its responsibility and lack of resources. There should be a mix of public and private transport elements and those in the business of seeking to provide private transport input to the total fabric should be encouraged and welcomed as a way of taking the burden off the Exchequer and CIE, not in direct confrontation or competition but as a form of joint venture in the first instance. Those are the questions I would like to see addressed in any attempt to increase expenditure on transportation.

In that context the fourth point I want to make is that it is an extraordinary vacuum in relation to CIE that there is not yet a serious statement of their social role. I have often seen headings stating that CIE lose £x million. It is about as valid as saying that old age pensions lose £x million. If we expect from the public transport facility a series of arteries into areas of our country which need that kind of lifeline that must be provided on the assumption and understanding that it must cost money. Therefore, I am asking for a radical review of our present way of providing those transport services and a clear statement for CIE of what their job is socially and economically. It is wrong to blame them for losing money if their job is essentially that of providing a social service which at the very least is part of their job.

Fifth, this approach to approving Estimates is extremely superficial. The sums of money involved here are significant, but bear in mind they are topping up extremely substantial sums already approved of. We might as well not bother our heads with this kind of approach or else do it seriously, and I am for doing it seriously. By that I mean getting a forum away from this Dáil Chamber where we can all take off our party political hats and in a systematic way over a period of months get down to making our assessments on behalf of the people of how their money is being spent. This nod and wink approach of rushing things through will not work except in that it continues to fuel public cynicism and much political apathy among many of our colleagues, present company possibly included. It is wrong for any Minister to come into the House and seek extra moneys without justifying how they should be spent or why they should be so spent.

There are six different requests in the Minister's speech. I accept that the request for £105,000 for an insurance premium is a policy decision by the Minister, and it is a good one. It should be approved and no further justification may be necessary there though perhaps a little elaboration on how the premium is being placed and whether there was open tendering for it would not go astray. Most of the others are requests to make up shortfalls. The currency exchange losses on certain Industrial Credit Corporation foreign borrowings could be perceived to arise from some form of misjudgment, although that may be too hard an interpretation.

The additional £55,000 required for Bord Fáilte is simply a statement that Bord Fáilte now require an additional £55,000. I want to know why. The Minister said it was in order to meet commitments already entered into. Is it possible that State bodies are still able to enter into open-ended commitments as they have done many times without reference to this House or to various Ministers? If they so do we should tell them that those moneys will not necessarily be approved of here. Bord Fáilte are one of the bodies I want to make it easy for in terms of their success as they do a very good job, but I am questioning the principle of State agencies spending money without apparent approval. It is not good enough to force us into retrospective endorsement of moneys already spent or committed. Whereas we are not opposing this Estimate today, in future State agencies who come via the Minister to this House looking for cash to make up for commitments already entered into will not necessarily get our approval here. If we all were to do that we would not be able to survive and that maximum should apply to these bodies also.

In relation to wages, salaries and allowances an additional £300,000 is required and the allocation for that purpose was apparently £700,000 short of requirements. How was that in a year when inflation was extremely low and wage increases niggardly if at all? How can we be so far out? That gives the lie to the kind of debate we had on those Estimates. Despite the best efforts of the Department they are still looking for more money.

I see under the same principle, a sum needed for travel and incidental expenses arises apparently from "increased usage of telecommunications equipment in these areas". Why? The Minister should say why without having to be asked. When the Minister wants more money he should say that the reasons are 1, 2, 3 and 4. Where there has been either a miscalculation or an error it is appropriate that we should know whether action has been taken to ensure that the systems in place which gave rise to that capacity for miscalculation are now eradicated and that in future when we discuss Estimates for Departments they mean what they say and that Supplementary Estimates arise only in the case of policy decisions made by Governments or unforeseen circumstances where moneys might be necessary. It should not arise in relation to current expenditure which was miscalculated significantly on the basis of the original Estimate.

Towards the end of the speech the Minister said: "In addition arrears of charges totalling £170,000 in the A5 Subhead relating to 1986 became due for payment in 1987." Was that estimated for and provided for initially? If not why not? Are we to take it that, despite the fact that changes are due in a Department, they are not often costed into the Estimate because it is next year's worry?

We must become serious about this kind of exercise and not cod ourselves and the public. There is not a line of justification in anything the Minister has submitted here today. He does not explain how even one of these increases is necessary except in regard to moneys for insurance when he said he decided it was prudent. Fair play to him, that is his prerogative and he is entitled to our support on it, but the other cases do not arise from actions of the Minister. They arise from action from the public service and it is not good enough for anybody in the public service to assume that an open cheque book will be presented to the Dáil and we will all be co-signatories in future. I want to put down a marker on behalf of my party. That will not be the philosophy we will be applying in future. Unless there are very strong reasons for it, we will want to know how the initial Estimate was wrong, why it was wrong, what is being done about it and how the people who made that miscalculation are being held accountable. The rest of us cannot simply spend, spend, spend and expect somebody else to pay the bills, which is essentially what has happened in this country over the past five or ten years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

May I remind Deputy Mitchell that this debate is confined to the subheads specified in the Supplementary Estimate? This will eliminate some of the matter we have tolerated up to now. The Deputy has ten minutes.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I thank you for your guidance and I am sure your very wise ruling will not restrict some passing reference to aspects of the Transport Estimate which deserve an airing. I would not wish to deprive the House of hearing the Minister's eloquent reply to this debate.

While I observe that there is no provision in this Estimate for the B & I, I regard the Minister's silence on this subject as ominous. I would have thought, given the developments in the B & I, that the Minister would have taken this opportunity to speak on this subject and to take the House into his confidence.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As a former Minister, the Deputy will appreciate that even Ministers can be ruled out of order. Unless he got special permission from the Ceann Comhairle he would not have the opportunity to speak on this matter.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I accept your ruling. I do not wish to waste my time contesting rulings of the Chair, but I hope the Minister takes advantage of his right of reply to say something about the B & I. I welcome the agreement of the marine officers. I hope this will be a significant turning point for the B & I and that, like the other transport companies, they will now head for profit because this is the last company to be turned around. It is only right that we should recognise the efforts made by the Minister, the chairman, board and management of the B & I and the unions who played a very constructive role.

In relation to the provisions suggested for the Air Navigation Services Office, I welcome the initiative taken by the Minister. Aviation is one of our growth industries. This sector is growing because, I hope, of the very wise and adventurous moves taken in the past few years in the Department of Transport, over which I had the honour to preside. I am very glad the present Minister is pursuing and expanding those policies. I also welcome, as he does, the developments at the European Council of Transport Ministers meeting last Monday. The provision for the Air Navigation Services Office is all the more urgent because of the growth in the aviation sector. More growth is possible and desirable, but the size of that growth will be dictated to a large degree by the Minister's judgment, by his openness and his willingness to change. I strongly encourage his willingness to that change not just in the number of routes granted to Irish airlines, or the fifth freedom rights sought and won, but in the manner of licensing airlines, and the future operations of Aer Lingus, Ryanair and Club Air.

There has been an adventurous approach to the future of Aer Lingus but they need large capital sums to replenish their fleet. It will require legislation to privatise, or to part privatise, Aer Lingus, or perhaps there are other ways of doing it, such as joint venture operations. There are many people at home and abroad who would be very interested in participating in joint ventures with Aer Lingus and ensuring the maximum growth for Irish aviation in the opening markets of Europe. Because of this growth I welcome the provision made in this Estimate in relation to the insurance taken out by the Air Navigation Services Office.

If we could develop every sector the way we are developing the aviation sector, we would be well on the way to solving this country's problems. We have a very exciting package already decided for the shipping sector. I know this is largely the responsibility of another Minister — it was the responsibility of the Department of Communications when I was there — but I see great potential for the expansion of the shipping sector because of the package which was put in place by myself and continued by the present Minister for the Marine. That is what Ministers should be doing — developing the sectors for which they are responsible and increasing employment where they can. I do not think there is nearly enough of this.

The extraordinary thing is that these developments took place in the past five years when the budget for the Department of Communications was being cut more than any other Department. There were no riots or protests in the streets because these cuts were introduced prudently and intelligently. As I said, this sector has had more cuts than any other but services have not diminished, they have increased. That is the model for what should be done elsewhere in the public sector.

I congratulate the Minister for pursuing the policies initiated in my time and which he is now expanding. It is only right that I should say a few words of congratulation and encouragement to the officials of the Department who were very often the authors of many ideas which led to this expansion.

There is another area I want to mention very briefly, that is, the road transport and distribution area. This is another area of great potential expansion. As we head towards 1992 — what has been referred to in the Council and Commission in Brussels as the Holy Year, the year when all things will be equal on the internal market — there will be a great opening up in this area and there will be great opportunities for Irish transport. I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister, some of which I had hoped to pursue to maturity, and I hope the Minister will pursue them with the same, if not more, vigour.

If Irish transport is to seize the opportunities for expansion in the opening markets of Europe they will have to be put on a competitive basis by 1992. At the moment they are at a competitive disadvantage of perhaps as much as 20 per cent against United Kingdom operators. If we add that to the cost of getting to the main markets of Europe, they are at a severe disadvantage. This means we have to look at our VAT on lorries, fuel costs, road tax and insurance costs, and, of course, we have to look at the state of our roads. I hope the Minister and the transport operators are trying to persuade the Minister for Finance to do something for them in the next budget. The coming budget should be the first step in the right direction so that in 1992 our transport industry will be at least on the same cost structure as the United Kingdom. Otherwise they will lose a great opportunity and it will be the Northern Ireland and British hauliers who will seize the opportunity for growth in the distribution market in Europe which is opening up because of the transportation plans in keeping with the internal market objective. We have a problem of getting to the market-place. If there are rough seas or a strike they cause great difficulties so the reliability and distance from the market is not as good as if we were on the mainland of Europe, which is a huge disadvantage for distributors.

The Minister should urgently consider the idea of setting up an Irish distribution centre on the mainland of Europe, in France, Belgium or the Netherlands. I envisage a major depot with warehouse facilities for Irish industries, including cold storage, offices and even a hostel for drivers. It could be used as a base for onward ferrying of Irish goods so that their distribution would not be obstructed by bad weather or strikes. We could guarantee the delivery of our goods on time and at a good price. It would be a major opportunity for employing Irish drivers in such a centre, perhaps they could arrange to work one or two weeks on and off. Ideally, such a depot would have an airstrip or be near an airport.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You have exceeded your time.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am grateful for your forbearance. I see this as a major objective of Irish transport policy and it should be pursued. It has major potential and it could involve some sort of customs free arrangement with the host nation. It is an ambitious project but it would provide many opportunities for Irish distribution. I strongly urge the Minister to consider it.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

I thank Deputies Taylor-Quinn, Keating and Mitchell for their contributions. I wish to give a number of reassurances. There is no risk whatever connected with the services being provided at Ballygirreen nor, for that matter, at Malin Head. I wish to state that strongly lest anybody gets the idea from the remarks made by Deputy Taylor-Quinn that there is such a danger or risk. We pay for the services at Malin Head and we are refunded from the Department of the Marine.

Deputy Taylor-Quinn also referred to Aer Rianta and the recent MoscowWashington talks. I had the opportunity of signing a contract with Minister Volkoff in Moscow which is bringing substantial benefits to the country. I discussed with him and his deputy the potential development of Aer Rianta services, including the one mentioned by Deputy Taylor-Quinn, of providing duty-free shop facilities at USSR airports. I understand that discussions are continuing and I should not like to be pessimistic about them. The implication of Deputy Taylor-Quinn's remarks was that somehow or other the GorbachevReagan meeting put those initiatives in danger. I hope she is wrong, I would not like to be defeatist about it. The experience of Shannon in her own constituency in its dealings with the USSR has been happy and to the advantage of Shannon and the country generally.

I full accept her point that the weakening dollar has a strong impact on tourism business from the United States to Ireland. In the year when the punt and dollar were at par — at one stage the dollar was even stronger than the punt — there was a huge increase in visitors from the United States. The deduction is obvious; the weaker our punt is vis-á-vis the dollar the better the opportunity for developing tourism to the country. The tourism sector of my Department and Bord Fáilte are fully aware of this and whatever steps can be taken in the circumstances will be taken. I do not want to expand on that because my time is limited but I have already put a number of things in place which should help in this regard, including a very liberal charter policy which I announced quite recently.

The next major point made by Deputy Taylor-Quinn was about the transfer of tourist functions to SFADCo at Shannon. I understand that that transfer is taking place smoothly, that there will be no injustice to anyone involved in it and, above all, that there will be no discrimination against any facility or provider of facilities in that area. I assure the Deputy that that is the philosophy which was outlined to me by SFADCo when dealing with this. I know the Deputy mentioned a number of facilities where there might be rivalry but I do not think there will be any discrimination in that area.

Deputy Keating raised a philosophic point at the outset of his speech. It is fair to say that the House had the opportunity to debate the Estimate in full earlier and that was the proper occasion for dealing with it in philosophic terms, to use the Deputy's word. He put forward the proposition that we should be addressing ourselves to the problem of a mixture of private and public transport. I am on record in the House as saying that my Department are examining minutely the 1932 Act which is out of date and upon which the whole transport scene is based. We will have proposals arising out of that examination in the not too distant future.

The social role of CIE is well accepted and one could advance the argument that it is also costed from the time when the State subvention was paid above the line. I agree with the Deputy that a close examination of the individual parts of that subvention is important and that it is the business of this House.

I served on the Committee on Public Expenditure with Deputy Keating as chairman and I understand quite clearly what he was talking about in that regard. He made an inquiry about insurance. We invited tenders and the insurance was placed with the Insurance Corporation of Ireland. With regard to the carryover system, it is not sloppy accounting or carelessness. Under existing arrangements — I am talking about subhead A.5 — payments of £60,000 on account are made quarterly to Telecom Éireann in respect of the provision of engineering services at State airports and other outstations. Any outstanding charges over and above the payments on account are settled in the following year. The Telecom Éireann charges for 1985, and 1986 were £321,366 and £300,807.78 respectively. The payments on account in both instances were £240,000, leaving a balance to be paid of £81,366 and £60,807.78. It is a system of payment.

I am in full agreement with Deputy Mitchell on the importance of ANSO — Air Navigation Services Offices — in that there is a magnificent and pleasing growth in air transport. He was partly responsible for that and I pay him that tribute. I hope to do even better than he did. I know that great opportunities will arise in 1992 when the free market comes into effect in Europe. I will keep his comments in mind in regard to ameliorating the position of our own hauliers and equipping them better for competition in the future.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 December 1987.