asked the Minister for Communications the stake the State will have in the company established to run Knock airport, County Mayo.

As already announced, the Government have decided to withdraw from further participation in the affairs of the Connaught Airport Development Company and suitable arrangements to give effect to this decision are under consideration at the moment.

What does "withdrawing from further participation" mean? Does it mean withdrawing State directors from the company? Does it mean withdrawal of any equity participation in the company?

As I said, this matter is under consideration at the moment. The Government announced their decision that there would be no further State funds available for the Connaught Regional Airport project. I have been approached by the board of the company following that decision to see if we could leave it to them to continue the project. I have made it clear that I will be as helpful as possible in that regard but the details have yet to be worked out and I hope they will be worked out in the near future.

Is there any precedent for the Government withdrawing from participation in a private company in which an enormous amount of taxpayers' money has been invested, and having no influence on the future direction of, or no equity participation in the company? Is the Minister aware that even in the disastrous Bula operation where £10 million of taxpayers' money was paid over, at least the Government had a major stake in the company? Is there any precedent for withdrawal on this scale from a company to which so much taxpayers' money has been given?

I cannot be sure that there is not a precedent but I am not aware of one. Everyone will recognise that the decision on Connaught Regional Airport set a precedent in itself. State funds were allocated for the project against all technical advice. Nevertheless, I must say that I admire very much the energy and enthusiasm of the people who promoted this project and I do not intend to stand in their way. I cannot anticipate the final arrangements which will be made between myself and the company but I hope to be in a position to clarify this situation very shortly.

Would the Minister confirm for Deputy Mac Giolla that the proper title of the airport is the Connaught Regional Airport? Would he not agree that this airport, once finished and operational, will be a useful instrument for the development of the community in this area which is underdeveloped?

The name of the company promoting the airport is the Connaught Regional Airport Development Company, sometimes known as Knock airport. I do not think that matters a lot. The studies into this matter in advance of the decision made were not favourable to the project. All the indications were that from a technical point of view the project will not succeed. However, given the energy which has been put into this project by the people concerned, I hope they will succeed.

Would the Minister agree that a reasonable time has elapsed since the company made representations last October with a view to seeking the Minister's permission to get the necessary funding to complete the airport? Would he also agree that it is reasonable to expect that the promise he gave in the intervening period would now be honoured? When does he propose to make the necessary information available to the company? Would he agree that it is incorrect to say that the technical evidence was totally contrary when the first decision was taken? There were grey areas as regards the technical difficulties, but there was a clear indication that if certain matters worked out favourably it could be a viable project.

To say there were grey areas is to put it at its best. I have recently written to the chairman of the company and, arising from that correspondence, I hope my Department and the company will be able to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the discussions on the future arrangements in relation to the State's investment.

In the arrangements which are not yet completed, can the Minister assure the House that the interests and the rights of the taxpayer will be protected? This is a commercial company. Will the Minister ensure that repayments are made for the taxpayers' money which has been invested in this company?

I can give the Deputy an assurance that I and the Government will seek to protect the interests of the taxpayers. That is what motivated our decision to withdraw from the company. I cannot give the Deputy a commitment that we will ask for repayments from this company because that is not my intention unless certain contingencies arose, such as the sale of the airport or site within the first 20 years. These arrangements have not been finalised but that is the direction in which we are going.

The Minister is handing over this company for nothing.

Will the Minister give an assurance that he will issue a licence on the completion of this airport?

That is another question.

Will the Minister review his derogatory comments, the foggy comments he made some time ago?

I cannot give the Deputy the assurance he seeks but he will appreciate that licences for airports can only be issued when it is clear that all the technical and safety considerations are met. In relation to what he calls my derogatory comments, I want to make it clear that they were not intended to be derogatory, they were factual. I am sorry that my factual comments were considered derogatory by some people who, understandably, are emotionally involved in this project.

A deliberate choice of words.

Would the Minister accept that the best way the taxpayers can be protected is for the licence to be issued so that this facility can be used for the betterment of the taxpayers and the people in the area? As for his "factual comments" maybe it was a rainy day but statistics will prove that there is a lot less for in that area than there is at Dublin Airport.

As I said, I cannot give a commitment in advance as regards the issuing of licences. I said that I informed the board of the company that I will be as helpful as possible and I will not be obstructive in this regard.

There is a slight nuance of change in the Minister's statement.

3.

asked the Minister for Communications the total amount of money given by the Exchequer by way of loans or grant to the development of Knock airport, County Mayo.

Grants totalling somewhat in excess of £9.8 million have been paid by the Exchequer towards the construction of Connaught Regional Airport. No loans have been made to the project.

In what manner were the grants paid?

They were paid out of the Vote for my Department.

Since £9.8 million of taxpayers' money has been paid out and as the Minister seemed to say, in answer to the last question, that he had no intention of looking for repayment of any of that money, will he be looking for repayment of the interest accrued? Will there by any protection for the taxpayer in this regard?

As I said, I do not intend to seek repayments of these funds unless certain contingencies arise and I do not expect that to happen. Grants were voted by this House to the project and it would be unrealistic and wrong to retrospectively seek repayment unless certain contingencies arose.

Could the Minister give the House an assurance that he will do nothing to prevent the directors of the company seeking the equity necessary to finalise the project, that he will in no way prevaricate or procrastinate and that he will refrain from making any derogatory remarks regarding the project or the people of the west in so far as this project is concerned?

There will be no prevarication and I have already made my decision clear to the board of the company in the letter I recently wrote to the chairperson. I know that Deputy Flynn and all the Deputies from that area have harassed me in relation to that subject over the past two years and that they are very involved emotionally in the subject. Sometimes factual remarks in that context are considered derogatory by them but that is not my intention.

Will the Minister retain some control over arrangements entered into by the airport company, with possibly foreign air companies, in relation to the use of the airport?

The Deputy is aware that, as Minister for Communications, I am the civil aviation authority for this country and that I have widespread regulatory powers in relation to air services and fares in and out of all airports. Should this airport become operational, I intend to deal with it in the same manner as other airports are dealt with and to be as fair, reasonable and balanced as I have tried to be in the case of all State airports.

Does the Minister not accept that the expenditure of £9.8 million represents tremendous value for money in view of the enormous over expenditure in many other areas? Does he also accept that the quickest and best way of getting a return for taxpayers' money is to have this airport in operation as quickly as possible so that the area, especially around Swinford and north Connacht, will benefit from the facility?

As the Deputy is aware, there are two views on this subject so I do not care to speculate on the point made. The Government and I will be as helpful to the project as possible and it will not be because of lack of goodwill on our part that the project will not succeed.

We cannot stay at the airport all day.

It is suggested that there might be a possibility of European money being made available for this project. If that is the case, will the Minister give an assurance that he will actively promote the company's application for such funding?

Deputy Flynn made a good point and I am sure he is aware that during the period when he was Minister of State, the matter was taken up informally by the Department of Finance with the EC. The then Government were very heavily discouraged from proceeding with their application and they withdrew it.

If an application is made, will the Minister actively support it?

I am just telling the Deputy that his Government did not support it.

The Minister is making excuses.

I am not making excuses.

If your support is requested——

I am explaining the experience which his Government had in this matter.

There is a big change in attitudes in Europe since then.

There is a big change in Government too since then.