Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Apr 1976

Vol. 289 No. 7

British & Irish Steam Packet Company Limited (Acquisition) (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

In 1965 the State acquired the British and Irish Steam Packet Company Ltd., the principal object being to ensure effective Irish participation on the Irish Sea in the interests of trade and tourism. The purchase price was £3,600,000. The issued share capital of the company at that time was £1,600,000.

The assets of the company at the time of their takeover by the State consisted principally of three vessels, the old Leinster, Munster and Innisfallen, which carried passengers, goods and livestock and a limited number of cars, four cattle/general cargo vessels, the Kilkenny, Meath, Dundalk and Glanmire, and two general cargo vessels, the Wicklow and Inniscarra. These vessels were for the most part out of date and ill-adapted to meet the developing needs of sea transport. In particular they could not cater for the revolutionary change from general cargo to containers, nor for the emerging trend towards the roll-on/ roll-off movement of passenger cars and freight vehicles. The new board of the company in consequence found it necessary to embark on a thoroughgoing policy of modernisation, involving the acquisition of three new roll-on/roll-off passenger ferries, four container ships and a roll-on/roll-off cargo ship. In addition it was necessary to invest in new specialised berths and terminals to cater for containers and ferries, as well as to acquire a stock of containers. The capital expenditure involved amounted to over £23 million. Very nearly 80 per cent of this investment was financed by loans or longterm leases or agreements.

Following an investigation of the company in 1970 by consultants who reported that undue proportion of the B & I's capital resources was made up of loan capital, an extra £3 million share capital was taken up by the Minister for Finance under the British and Irish Steam Packet Company (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1971, bringing the issued share capital of the company to £4.6 million.

Even after the raising of the issued share capital to £4.6 million, the capital structure of the company still reflected a substantial imbalance between share and loan capital. As against a total capital expenditure of over £23 million, the equity content of £4.6 million represented only 20 per cent leaving a disproportionate share of 80 per cent made up of loans and similar forms of financing.

This loan orientated capital structure is throwing an unduly heavy burden on the company by way of interest and principal payments. For example, the company achieved a net profit of £281,000 in 1974 after allowing for financial charges of £1,000,000 in that year, and will record a further surplus of £139,000 in their 1975 accounts after allowing for financial charges of £1,400,000 in that year.

The need for further share capital at this juncture was established by reports from consultants engaged at the behest of the Minister for Finance, who have undertaken a review of the company's operations and of their prospects and financial outlook up to the end of the decade. The consultants made clear that, apart from share capital needed to restore the loan/ equity balance, it was likely that a requirement would arise for substantial additional capital towards the cost of any further expansion of the scope of the company's activities, or of the replacement or renewal of the vessels of the fleet or of terminal facilities.

For these reasons I have deemed it advisable to take the opportunity to provide scope in the present legislation for meeting possible future needs of the company as well as their present requirements, and accordingly I am, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, seeking the agreement of the Oireachtas to empower the Minister for Finance to take up a further £15 million share capital in the company. In effect, the company's authorised share capital is being increased by this amount.

Apart from what is needed to restore a reasonable loan/equity ratio, the B & I Company will also require capital to help finance the acquisition of an additional car ferry vessel. They have, in fact, in the past week, made a formal proposal to me to order another car ferry to be built at Verolme Cork Dockyard for delivery in 1978. The matter is under active consideration at the moment in consultation with the Minister for Finance and I would hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly. The company propose to have two vessels on the Cork/Swansea route, complementing the two operating on the Dublin/Liverpool service.

I believe that I should avail of this occasion to undertake a general review of the B & I's activities, especially in the light of the investigations recently conducted by consultants.

The company's operations come under two main heads, passenger traffic and goods traffic. Passengers— both foot passengers and motorists— and cars are carried on two carferries, the Munster and the Leinster, operating between Dublin and Liverpool, and on a third, the Innisfallen, operating between Cork and Swansea. These services are, of course, of vital importance to Irish tourism, offering as they do the most economic means of transport from our main market.

Since the introduction of the company's car ferries in 1968 their carryings have increased spectacularly, for example: passenger carryings have increased from 360,000 in 1968 to 576,000 in 1975; car carryings have increased over the same period from 43,000 to 110,000, and the number of wheeled units moved has increased from 5,157 to 27,459.

The company have maintained this growth pattern despite the effects of the Northern Ireland trouble on tourist traffic from Britain and the downturn in the Irish and British economies. In the context of an overall expansion of the market the company believe that the prospects for continued increase in the overall numbers of sea passengers are good.

The second part of the company's operations is the carriage of cargo. At the present time the B & I operate a container service from Dublin to Liverpool, as well as a weekly service to Rotterdam and Le Havre. Container services entail the use of custom-built container ships, together with elaborate terminal installations at ports. In addition, the three car ferries provide all year round capacity for the carriage of roll-on/roll-off goods traffic. About 12 months ago, the company undertook, jointly with the British firm of P and O, who provided the ship, a roll-on/roll-off cargo service between Dublin and Fleetwood.

The B & I are the major carriers of freight on the Irish Sea moving almost one million tons of freight a year between Ireland, Britain and Europe. They carry 30 per cent of all traffic on the Irish Sea and this includes exports for onward shipment to many parts of the world. They offer a truly comprehensive service catering for every customer requirement. The most significant development has been in the field of roll-on/ roll-off freight which is growing at the rate of 20 per cent per year. This trend has been accelerated since Ireland's accession to the EEC. It is significant to note in the context of the company's freight activities that their average price for moving goods has risen by only 22 per cent per ton since 1966 compared with a rise in the consumer price index of 120 per cent over the same period. In actual money terms, the average charge per ton of freight carried was £5.13 in 1966 and £6.27 at the end of 1975. When it is considered that these figures ignore the fall in the value of money over the interval, it is very obvious that the real cost of shipping a ton of freight across the Irish Sea has fallen sharply over the period.

Following the economic downturn resulting from the fuel crisis at the end of 1973 the company reorganised their services to match frequency and capacity more closely to current demands. At that time the company reduced their container operation into Liverpool from two ships to one ship and transferred traffic to the new joint service to Fleetwood which the company commenced in April, 1975, in conjunction with the P and O Company. This had the added benefit of achieving a significant degree of rationalisation of freight services on the Irish Sea and at the same time allowed the company to provide capacity for increased roll-on/roll-off freight demands.

Two special factors, one adverse and one helpful, may be noted. There is a basic imbalance between the volume of goods conveyed from Britain to Ireland, and from Ireland to Britain. The fact that there is more empty space on eastward-bound cargo ships than on westward means greater competition for traffic on the former, to the benefit, no doubt, of the Irish exporter, but at the expense of the carrier, while the imbalance of volume also militates against the most efficient use of vessels, containers, pallets and other facilities.

The more favourable factor, from the viewpoint of the B & I, is the growing trend towards roll-on/roll-off traffic at the expense of container traffic. The advantages offered by roll-on/roll-off to the customer have led him to utilise this mode increasingly, despite the higher charges levied, which are more economic to the shipowner. This development is consequently beneficial to both parties.

The B & I were acquired by the Government with the intention that it should continue to be operated as a commercial enterprise and this objective has been adhered to. The development programme undertaken by the board of directors involved the construction of new terminals at Dublin, Cork, Liverpool and Swansea; three new car ferries, the new Munster and Leinster operating Dublin-Liverpool, and the Innisfallen operating Cork-Swansea, and five new freight ships, the container vessels Wicklow, Kerry, Sligo and Kilkenny and the roll-on/ roll-off vessel Dundalk, were constructed; of these the Wicklow operates Dublin-Liverpool, and the KilKenny Dublin/Le Havre/Rotterdam, the Kerry and the Dundalk, with Irish crews are on charter abroad, and the Sligo is no longer employed by the company; new road transport fleets and a pool of 3,500 containers and trailers and extensive terminal equipment were required. Staff had to be retrained and new business obtained. Today we see the fruits of this programme:

Present turnover of the company amounts to £19 million, two-thirds of which revenue is earned abroad; it employs 1,500 people—1,200 in Ireland; its annual expenditure on goods and services in Ireland is £10 million; its expenditure at Verolme Cork Dockyard since 1969 has been £10 million; its expenditure at Liffey Dockyard since 1969 is £1.4 million.

The company have had an excellent record in the field of personnel relations. They have developed the concept of works councils in their organisation and these now form a real part of their communicating and decision-making processes. In 1975 all the employees of the company, in recognition of the difficulties likely to face the economy in 1976, agreed to defer any increase which might emerge out of any new national wage agreement for 12 months. This would represent an interest free loan to the company which would be repayable from future profits.

In retrospect it would seem to me that, having regard to the extensive scheme of modernisation which the B & I had to embark upon in the sixties, the capital resources with which it was provided by the State at the outset were far from adequate, and the company have never really been able to compensate for this initial handicap. If the company are to continue their progress, a further allocation of capital is now urgently necessary. The figure of £15 million provided for in this Bill will enable the company's loan/equity ratio to be restored to a reasonable balance and at the same time make provision for the financing of a further car ferry vessel. I should make it clear at this stage that all that is being done is that the maximum authorised share capital which the Minister for Finance is empowered to subscribe is being increased by £15 million. It is the intention that the money will actually be made available in instalments from time to time in this and future years only according as it may be required to meet the immediate needs of the company.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

We support this Bill which will enable the Minister to increase his capital investment in this company. We sincerely hope that he will be able to subscribe the capital in the present economic situation. We would also like to congratulate the company on their performance and achievements since they acquired the coastal services of a certain company in 1965. It makes a pleasant change for the Minister, as well as ourselves to speak of a semi-State body which is still able to make a profit. As I said, the company are to be congratulated and we hope their performance will continue.

We also recognise the vital contribution the company are making to tourism and the economy. They are the main carrier of tourists on the Irish Sea. The number of passengers carried last year, 576,000, is a large percentage of the total passengers on these routes. They carried 110,000 cars—a magnificent performance. It is good to hear that they have such confidence in the future that they propose to extend their services. If they do that, they will help our economy and the tourist industry by giving them a much needed injection.

The Minister went through the company's records very fully and it is not necessary for any of us to say very much about them. We realise that the company cannot continue meeting the loan repayments of 1.8 million over the next five years if they are to expand. As they said, the company must provide an additional car ferry for the Dublin-Liverpool and Cork-Swansea routes. The increase cost of tonnage is 400 per cent while freight rates have risen by only 22 per cent.

We also welcome the announcement that they intend to place their order with Cork dockyard. This is reassuring in the view of recent experience with Irish Shipping who created new employment in Japan. We are delighted that B & I will not make any move towards getting their ships built in Japan. As we pointed out at the time, the figure for Irish Shipping was false because of the drastic drop in the £ against all hard currencies, including the yen. It would be very interesting to hear exactly how much these ships will cost. Taking into account the drop in the £, even in the last two weeks, I feel certain the figure will be far in excess of the price quoted at the time. At the rate the £ is devaluing, the figure will probably be even higher than the quotation from Cork Dockyard. This should have been foreseen by the Government and the company. It was not too difficult to foresee this, and we pointed it out at the time.

Irish Shipping are providing increased employment in the Japanese shipyards instead of protecting the numbers employed in the Cork Dockyard. The B & I proposal, together with the Irish Shipping order, would have made a great contribution towards reversing the unemployment trend and providing more cash flow into that area. It was a grave error and we are delighted it is not being repeated on this occasion. It should never have taken place. This company have made a very substantial contribution to the Exchequer. In 1975 they provided £934,000 in pay through all the company's operations. I am sure this is very welcome to the Exchequer. As the Minister pointed out, they also enjoy very good personnel relations. It is very welcome to see a company and their employees getting on so well. They have 1,500 employees, of which there are 1,200 employed in the country. They also spend a lot of money on goods and services which they require. A very important feature of their operations is that 66 per cent of their revenue is in foreign currency. This is very important for our economy.

This company have for some time been seeking duty free facilities on the Irish Sea. There is no reason why such facilities should not be provided to this company. They are the only people operating between EEC countries which have not these facilities. This facility is already provided between Shannon Airport and England if you fly direct. I cannot understand why this facility is not granted to the B & I on the Irish Sea. The company estimate that this would bring in an additional income of £4 million. It would help to give a further stimulus to the freight industry. I ask the Minister to look into this matter and take whatever action is necessary to afford those facilities to the B & I on the Irish Sea. I do not know who is stopping this facility being provided to them. It should certainly be granted.

I would like to congratulate the company on their achievements since 1965 and I hope these will continue. I look forward to their expansion in the manner it is being proposed with a view to helping our economy and the country and also in the next year or two providing increased facilities for tourists to come and spend more money here.

Like my colleague, Deputy Barrett, I would like to welcome the introduction of this Bill. Its introduction is an endorsement of the wise decision made by the Fianna Fáil Administration in the sixties when they decided to take an interest in the British and Irish Steampacket Company. At that time they foresaw our entry into Europe and the necessity for this island nation to have secure shipping facilities. They very wisely became involved with the British and Irish Steampacket Company. The introduction of this Bill, increasing the share capital up to £18 million, follows on that wise decision.

The Government are merely providing an enabling measure and are not providing the money. The Minister said that this money would be made available in instalments. What sort of instalments will be made? When will the money be made available to them? If the situation is as bad as it appears at the moment in relation to the balance between equity and loans surely the necessity for the money is obvious now? A very large first instalment should be paid.

I am pleased to see that the Minister has announced that the B & I intend placing an order for a new car ferry with Verolme Dockyard for delivery in 1978. It must be very obvious that there is a need to have any future vessels required for any of our shipping companies built in Ireland. It has been reported in today's papers, in relation to British Rail, that because of inflation and sterling devaluation the 9,000 ton ferry for the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead route, at present being built in Denmark, will cost an extra £2 million. When the original order was placed the cost was £12 million but it has now gone up to £14 million. This experience, together with the disastrous decision made by Irish Shipping to have ships built in Japan, indicates that in the future we must build our ships in Ireland. Despite the short term attraction of lower foreign tenders it has now been proved that this has been eaten away by the drop in sterling and because of inflation. When ships are built in Ireland there is the extra bonus of providing badly needed jobs in Ireland in a highly labour intensified industry. We should insist that the construction of ships required by any of our State-sponsored bodies be carried out in Ireland.

Everybody must be proud of the B & I success story. They have a very necessary role to play in the tourist industry. In 1974 the company carried 99,500 cars and approximately 548,000 passengers. This is a major contribution to the tourist industry. The company were very far seeing when they introduced their drive on/ drive off facilities. The Minister for Transport and Power could make a very major contribution to further expansion of the B & I if he was prepared to do something this side of the House has spoken about on many occasions and something which is common in many European countries, that is facilities for reduced petrol prices for tourists. This could be done on a coupon system. The coupons could be bought on the B & I ferries or any other ferries coming into the country. If we were prepared to provide petrol at a cheaper rate for tourists it would be a great attraction and would result in more money being spent by tourists here.

Deputy Barrett mentioned the provision of duty free facilities on the B & I. They are the only remaining link in any of the EEC countries without such facilities. This can be said not only for our ships but also for our airplanes.

I put down a question approximately two years ago to the Minister for Finance on this matter. He said the British Chancellor was not in favour of it. We are an independent nation. Surely we are capable of making independent decisions. We should have duty free facilities on our ships and airplanes. It has been estimated that this would provide an extra £4 million to £5 million worth of business. It would considerably increase the employment potential of United Distillers, our own Irish company. It would increase our cigarette trade. Other trades would be improved considerably. It would bring extra money into these businesses if duty free facilities were provided on our ships and on our airplanes. Aer Lingus should be allowed to provide this facility.

B & I have been very progressive in their approach to the provision of new facilities and new ships and nowhere better than in their drive-on/ drive-off service. They made gains by the introduction of that service. They have a large portion of the tourist market on the Irish Sea. In their examination of their future plans, they should consider providing a facility which is provided on the English Channel between Britain and France, that is, a hover-craft service. B & I must have had this in mind because they set up a subsidiary, Irish Sea Hovercraft Ltd. So far there has been no trading with that company. In the future the provision of a hovercraft service on the Irish Sea should be looked into. It has proved very successful on the English Channel. I have no doubt it would prove very successful on the Irish Sea routes as well.

Being an island nation in the EEC, we must have a very efficient sea network and sea link. B & I have a major role to play in freight. I congratulate them on the way they have met this challenge so far. I encourage them to even greater efforts in the future. The success of this company has been due in no small way to the co-operation and liaison between the staff and management. I should like to record my congratulations to the staff on a job well done, not only in the way they have co-operated with the management but also in the way they have looked after the travelling public. They have set a headline for many other semi-State and private companies in the effectiveness of their works council. The chairman of the board, Mr. M.J. O'Keeffe, in his address at the annual general meeting last April commented on this. I should like to echo what he had to say. B & I transformed a loss in 1973 to a profit of £281,000 in 1974. I was delighted to hear the Minister announcing there will be a further profit in 1975. This is due to the co-operation between management and staff.

The Minister said:

I believe that I should avail of this occasion to undertake a general review of the B & I's activities, especially in the light of the investigations recently conducted by consultants.

I will throw out an idea to the Minister and I should like to hear his comments on it. I have no definite views on the matter myself but I should like to hear the Minister's comments. We are a small nation. We have two shipping companies, Irish Shipping and B & I. They are both semi-State companies. I should like the Minister or his advisers to examine the possibility of having some link between the two companies. Irish Shipping are involved in deep sea operations and B & I in local and European operations. The situation is similar in the airline business. Aer Lingus operate the European line and one of their subsidiaries operate the American line. I think they are called Aerlínte. Is there any possibility of a similar type of liaison between B & I and Irish Shipping?

I appeal to the Minister and his colleagues in Government, having introduced this measure here today, to make the money available to B & I so that they can go from strength to strength.

Most of what I want to say will be by way of question. I also welcome the Bill to provide this money. I support Deputy Burke in his plea that the money should be made available at once. This firm are very successful and deserve well of the country. The Minister said the consultants were particularly exercised by the imbalance in the loan equity situation and that the provision of this money is, in great part, intended to bring a better balance between what is borrowed and the equity.

I should like to know from the Minister what terms of reference those consultants had. Were they in a position to examine the possibility of the use of other ports by ships, either existing ones or, if the existing ones are too big, ports like Drogheda.

Did the Deputy say "boats" or "ports"?

Ports. Listening to the Minister's statement one heard about Dublin-Cork and Cork-Dublin. No other place in Ireland is involved. Was there a general consideration by the consultants of the use which could be made of other ports, even in the west of Ireland apart from the traditional and historic ports on the east coast? I know the economics of this would be very important but, with the steep rise in the cost of road transport, there might be sense in operating with small vessels from the west to the east coast.

I should like to add my word of exhortation to the Minister about duty free facilities. I have had correspondence from the United Counties Association in Britain, an association who are pushing this very strongly. The Minister should give it serious consideration.

The position with regard to the roll-on/roll-off service seems to be satisfactory. I wonder whether the Minister heard any complaints from personnel in this service, and particularly in the meat service. Has there been any unnecessary interference by the Customs and Excise people or the security people in the working of B & I? If the Minister thinks there might be economic benefit from it, I suggest that, if his consultants did not consider the point about other ports when they were examining the company, since the employment situation is so grave, he might ask a firm of consultants to examine the question of extending activities to other ports, if necessary getting smaller vessels, thus providing extra employment which is badly needed. When I was working in Donegal I remember seeing small coal ships from Holland operating to places such as Letterkenny up stretches of the Swilly. The story there was that it was the only place where ships travelled by meadow. From a distance it appeared as if the ships were moving between fields and it looked rather mysterious. If B & I could expand their business in that way it would be to the advantage of the country.

I should like to thank the House for the warm welcome for this Bill. As I pointed out earlier, it is to redress the loan capital equity of the B & I Company. As I stated when I spoke initially on this matter, this had got seriously out of balance during the years because of the capital structure of the company. An injection of capital was given in 1971. Since then the assets have grown enormously; both the onshore and floating assets have been replaced, modernised and updated. This work was done largely by borrowing loans and we have now reached the position where too much of the profits are being eaten up by loan charges.

The Minister for Finance is a shareholder in the company and the Government took a decision that I should be empowered to bring in this Bill. However, before doing that, they said that for the purpose of giving effect to this decision the consultants' firm of Mergers Limited, a subsidiary of the Industrial Credit Company Ltd., was engaged to advise the Ministers to review and check the estimates and assumptions of future trading activities the revenue prepared by B & I for the period up to 1980, on which the anticipated capital requirements of the company were based. This was just to check that it was purely to do with the ratio of loan capital to equity capital. It had nothing to do with the day-to-day administration of the company, with trading with different ports which the board decided to carry out.

I anticipated that the proposed new ferry to operate on the Cork-Swansea route would be welcomed by the House. As I pointed out last November, on the Private Members' motion regarding Irish Shipping, it was intended that it would be built in the dockyard. I thought that the Opposition would not be able to resist reintroducing the topic of the purchase of the two ships in Japan. Either they do not know the facts, they have forgotten them or they choose to ignore them.

As I pointed out last November, and it is still true today, the Verolme Dockyard could not take an order at that stage. There was a bottleneck in the shed which would not be free until the end of 1976. The Department of Defence have given an order for a new fishery protection vessel and this will carry the company through until the early months of 1977. I pointed out that this would be done when we were discussing the Private Members' motion and I also said that it will be followed by an order for the B & I car ferry. Even though the order must be given reasonably soon, it will come on-stream for construction in the early months of 1977 and it will carry the company through until the middle of 1978.

Although the Opposition ignored it, Verolme said that if the sequence of events occurred in this way they would consider Irish Shipping were quite correct in giving the order to Japan. The joint cost of the two ships ordered in Japan is less than the cost of the B & I car ferry. One of the ships will be launched in July this year and the other in October of this year, both before the Verolme Dockyard were ready to take the order. Verolme Dockyard could not accept the order until the end of 1978 but the ships ordered in Japan will be earning money for Irish Shipping long before that time.

Deputy Barrett referred to the relationship between the yen and the £. In the order for the car ferry and in any order given to Verolme, for a reason I do not understand—the previous Government came to this arrangement—25 per cent of the cost must be paid in Dutch guilders. It is not a sterling transaction and it is subject to currency fluctuations. There is no escalation clause with regard to wages in the Japanese contract but there is such a clause in any contract given to Verolme.

The attitude of both companies was quite correct. The most important thing that can be said is that the dockyard won the contract in their own right because they were more capable and had better prices than any of the six other yards who were asked to quote for the car ferry. They won the contract in their own right; it was not steered towards them against the will or inclination of another State company.

The Opposition cannot continue to come here and say that taxes are too high but that we must spend more money. They never seem to see the contradiction in this. The Government can only get money by raising taxes. They must clear their minds on this point: they cannot advocate cutting taxes while calling for increased expenditure. Irish Shipping were correct to go to Japan for the ships because they got ships at a cheap rate and in this way they can compete with companies who are buying in the same market. It will ensure employment for 150 Irish men while the ships are in operation. B & I were quite correct in what they did. They will get the standard of workmanship they require on the spot. The car ferry will be used by thousands of people continuously throughout the year. Parts wear out and servicing is required and this will be available on the spot in Ireland. If the Opposition had discussed this matter with someone who was involved in finance, they would see that the two decisions were correct and were in the best interests of the country. In time they will see that this is the position but I suspect they will never admit it in public. The correct decision was taken to build the car ferry in the dockyard.

What about the 25 per cent drop in the £?

As the relationship between the yen and the £ has changed of course it will mean an extra cost to Irish Shipping but the two ships will still cost less than the car ferry. Verolme Dockyard said that if they got the fishery protection vessel and the car ferry, not alone would they not raise any objections but they would prefer those two ships to the bulk carriers for Irish Shipping. They are getting what they want now, namely, continual employment in their yard up to the end of 1978.

That is not what they said.

Yes, it is. The general manager of the dockyard wrote to the Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time to that effect before the order was placed. Another hoary chestnut is the question of duty-free goods on ships and on planes crossing the Irish Sea. This has been going on for 15 years. It was originally proposed in the early sixties to Dr. Ryan, the then Minister for Finance. After he left office Deputy Lynch became Minister for Finance and the proposal was put to him. When Deputy Lynch became Taoiseach Deputy Haughey was appointed to the office and subsequently Deputy Colley became Minister for Finance. This proposition regarding duty-free goods on Irish ships and planes travelling between England and Ireland was put to each of them.

It was summarily thrown out by all of them and if Deputy Barrett wants to know why it was not implemented he might ask any of his colleagues, but the present Minister for Finance says he thinks there may be merit in it and he would like to have a proper case put to him by Bord Fáilte, Aer Lingus and B & I and have it examined in depth and then make a decision having seen all the facts, not summarily throwing it out. That is at present under way. A decision will be made by the Minister for Finance when he gets a report from the interdepartmental committee. I could not anticipate that decision but for the first time this suggestion is being seriously examined by people who can make a judgment on it and I hope the result will be available reasonably shortly.

Deputy Burke raised the point about the amalgamation of B & I and Irish Shipping. People sometimes think this is an obvious thing to do but the car ferry is operating across the Irish Sea and engages in a different type of trade to that of Irish Shipping. Car ferries are extensions of rail and road services between here and England and what might be looked at, if there was thought of amalgamation, would be amalgamation between B & I and CIE rather than B & I and Irish Shipping. At present I am very satisfied with the way the three companies are operating separately. If I could see benefit to the economy by bringing two of those companies together—I would prefer to see them operating and concentrating in the specialised area in which each operates; I think that is better—I am open to any argument put forward for the amalgamation of any two of them. I have no preconceived ideas about what should happen.

If you combine B & I with CIE, is there not a danger of them losing?

I know, but it might be more logical than to join them with Irish Shipping. At the moment I am satisfied that each of them is operating in a specialised field efficiently and well and I would like to leave them like that.

Deputy Burke asked when the money would be made available to B & I. It will not be made available in a lump sum but in different pieces by the Minister for Finance as the company require it, for instance, to pay for the car ferry, when the various claims for that come on stream.

Will the Minister provide any money immediately to rectify the present imbalance between equity——

Yes, money will be provided this year. The Minister for Finance is the shareholder, in fact, and it is he who will be taking up the equity even though the company and legislation relating to it come under my Department. He is the shareholder in every State company, not the Minister under whose Department the company comes.

But if the imbalance is there at present, surely the necessity for the money is there?

The money will be supplied this year, as far as is necessary. Deputy Burke also asked about hovercraft. I understand that at present the position is that the Irish Sea is much more turbulent and dangerous than the English Channel and that hovercraft are not sufficiently technologically advanced to be used on this route. I am sure B & I are keeping all these developments under review and if they see a demand and the possibility of making a profit on the Irish Sea with hovercraft and continuing to operate with safety, they will introduce them.

Deputy Wilson said he hoped there was no undue interference by customs and excise and security people with the personnel on roll-on/roll-off ferries. If he means that customs and security personnel are checking the employees and passengers on the ferries as they come from England, I am sure he will agree that is very necessary——

But not overdoing it.

I do not think it could be overdone. It is extremely important. The Deputy appreciates why the security net should be tight. Car ferries are a very obvious way of smuggling and the security personnel should be very alert and keep an eye open at all times for the possible importation of weapons or anything like that.

I thank the House for what I expected would be their welcome for increased capital for the B & I Company and a recognition of the valuable part they are playing for tourism and for the economy generally. Deputy Barrett referred to a point that, perhaps, needs reiteration, the benefit Irish exporters get from the freight carried by B & I. By providing competition they have ensured that in the last eight or ten years freight rates have risen by only 22 per cent. This is a great benefit to Irish exporters. If that competition with the B & I were not there, transport between here and our major customer would be very much higher.

Drogheda on the east coast was mentioned particularly in connection with the Navan mining development. Did B & I consider Drogheda for any activity?

I am not an expert on this but I think the point is that B & I have facilities on the other side of the English Channel which they must use. They could run into Liverpool from Drogheda rather than Dublin, perhaps or could negotiate other facilities but I think—particularly in regard to car ferries—they would want to operate from the point of greatest demand so that they would have a better chance of getting the highest occupancy on their ferries——

Freight and cargo.

Freight and cargo. Anybody is free to operate a freight and cargo service into this country. We have a totally open shipping policy and if any shipper wants to operate into Drogheda at any time, he is free to do so without any restriction.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share