One of the major problems facing the Irish Steel plant is the high cost of energy and for that reason I welcome the statement by the Minister that the Minister for Industry will be bringing forward some proposals on this within a short period. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in spite of the economic climate in recent years the plant has managed to increase its market. The future of the plant depends on a continuing economic recovery in Europe. A demand for steel goes hand in hand with a healthy economy. It also depends on a favourable outcome in Europe to the question of quotas. I assume that the future of Irish Steel will be considered by the Council of Ministers in the near future. It must be brought to the attention of the members of that Council that Irish Steel is a small mill by European standards creating 0.2 per cent of the overall EEC capacity. The Bill, and the proposals put forward by the Minister, represent further positive steps by the Government to get the economy of the greater Cork area back on its feet. The Minister's announcements, in conjunction with those in response to the task force, indicate that the Government are giving every encouragement to the people of the area. I welcome the measure.
Irish Steel Limited (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Second Stage (Resumed).
Before I call on the next speaker I should like to remind Members that all stages of the Bill must be disposed of not later than 4.30 p.m. I understand that a number of Deputies wish to contribute to the debate and if the Chair is to have an opportunity of calling on all of them they might consider being brief.
I will comply with the Chair's request. It is an indication of the interest and concern of the representatives of the region that so many Cork Members are anxious to contribute to this debate. I was surprised at the concluding remarks of Deputy Allen. There is no doubt that he was trying to gain some kudos for the harassed and beleagured Government. For any person to suggest that Cork could continue without the 600 jobs in Irish Steel is stretching the matter a long way. The area has been devastated by unemployment in recent times. The elimination of the huge financial burden caused by the loan charges on the company represents a financial gain and will improve the presentation of accounts. I appreciate the comments by the Minister that he expects plans from his colleague on ESB charges but as far as I can see the Government spend all their time talking about plans, proposals, white papers and reports of task forces but do not take any positive action. Before we left Government in October 1982 we had taken a decision to carry out an investigation into the excessive cost of ESB charges to industry. Irish Steel is a glaring example of excessive ESB charges being a major factor militating against the company being competitive in the world market.
I have a special interest in the company. Long before my political involvement in the area I was engaged in the development work that took place there in the mid-sixties. This was followed by the erection of a bridge linking the island to the mainland in the late sixties. I support the future of the company. The 600 jobs are vital to the life of the Cork region. The management of Irish Steel have faced up to the challenge in a positive way. It is true that there has been over-expenditure on development but many factors were involved. One of the factors was the confined nature of the location of the company. It is tragic that there has been over-expenditure of the magnitude outlined but it is a tribute to the management that they faced up to the challenge. I was impressed when I went on a tour of the plant recently by the high technological development that has taken place there in the last five years. All concerned are deserving of a tribute.
I wish the management success and I have no doubt that this allocation will be a further spur to them to ensure that this strategic industry will not be lost. The Minister should tell his colleagues how important a stimulus to the building industry would be for a concern like Irish Steel. I would make the criticism that it was he who, while Minister for Finance, put an added burden on State companies, even those desperately trying to be viable. He seemed to convey a message that all State industries were bad news, were not good ventures, were not being successful and should not be supported. He initiated a campaign along these lines which made it more difficult for management like that of Irish Steel to continue.
I wish the company every success. I have no doubt that they will accept the challenge and face up to it successfully. I would ask the Minister to tell us the results of the investigation into the excessively high rate of electricity charges since a huge amount of electricity is used in the firing process in the steel industry.
I should like to set this debate in the context of the real arena which is in Europe and throughout the world. I have to hand the Seventeenth General Report on the Activities of the European Communities, 1983, and it contains some sobering thoughts. It spells out clearly that the whole steel industry is in "crisis", a term used more by politicians than by bureaucrats. This document spells out the catastrophic drop in demand for steel throughout the world. It states that there was no sign of a recovery in the world steel market in 1983, although I am glad to hear the Minister say that there has been a fragile improvement in 1984. That is a message of hope. In 1983, 33,000 jobs were lost in the steel industry in Europe, following an equal loss the previous year. That is the climate in which our small steel industry has to survive. On the plus side it can be said that Irish Steel have a first-class, modern, automated mill. Tragically it cost £26.5 million more than estimated and that scale of over-run is part of the problem. We are speaking here about taxpayers' money.
The Minister has faced a very difficult dilemma. On the one hand, if he were not to bring in this legislation he would have to come up with that kind of money anyway because of the guarantees. The alternative is to keep Irish Steel in business. He has made that decision on a fine balance and it is correct. It is not a "seat of a pants" judgment but is based on three serious studies by world renowned consultants. In so far as any man could equip himself with what is necessary to make the correct decision the Minister has done it. I congratulate him.
It is acknowledged everywhere, particularly in Cork, that Irish Steel have a first-class mill. Most of us from Cork have been there and it is a revelation to see it. It is well managed, with the question mark that some of the people managing it had something to do with that extraordinary over-run of £26.5 million. The workforce have rowed in well, productivity has been increased and there seem to be good industrial relations. It is heartening to read the consultants' comments in one of the latest reports that they see improvements on virtually all fronts in relation to what Irish Steel set out to do the previous year.
On the negative side, Irish Steel have to contend with energy costs which are roughly 30 per cent in excess of the average among their competitors. One of the most depressing statements in the Minister's speech is the reference to electricity and the fact that these international consultants, who must be advising many major investors throughout the world, say that electricity charges in Ireland, unlike those in other countries, provide no incentive to industrial development here. I look forward to seeing how the Minister addresses that problem in his new industrial policy. Other Ministers will be involved in that problem. For consultants of this eminence to say that there is no incentive here because of the energy cost problem is a serious indictment of our industrial strategy and it needs further attention.
It is true that a mill in an island country labours under the disadvantage transport costs and they will have to find other efficiencies to counter that. They are doing so. Let us hope the EEC will grant us the extra quotas to which we are entitled. This is a fledgling industry entitled to come closer to its full capacity. I rely on the Minister's bargaining ability to secure that because it is essential for the future of the mill. The Minister has said that this is virtually the last chance. The situation is unusual because the time may come next year when the question of the viability of Irish Steel raises its head again. At that point we will not be talking about twisting the arm of the Government or this Minister; we will be talking about twisting the arm of the EEC Commission and that cannot be done any more in relation to steel. This is a last chance for Irish Steel and I hope it succeeds.
We must ask where the taxpayer comes into this matter. What does this £90 million mean? It is equivalent to 4 per cent of the entire PAYE take for one year. It would build 4,000 houses or three million square feet of factory space. It would give between £400 and £500 to every unemployed person. That is the scale of it. That is why so many people are taking an interest in it. It is not the Government who are making this sacrifice for the future of Irish Steel, the jobs there and the industry in Cork Harbour. It is the taxpayer who is overtaxed. I know that sacrifice is meeting a ready response in Irish Steel. Let us hope it is a well-placed act of faith.
I have agreed to facilitate other Deputies who wish to contribute to this debate. I welcome the Government's decision to make a further investment in Irish Steel. I have been advocating for some time that during a time of recession industry should receive financial aid from the Government to assist them through a difficult period, especially industries which have proved themselves viable and efficient.
The recent consultants' report on Irish Steel was very satisfactory and the prospects for the future are good if the progress of the industry is carefully monitored. It is one of the most modern of its kind in the world. It is mainly geared for the export trade and 65 to 70 per cent of its product is exported. These are the kinds of things we need and must encourage. It is important that the industry should be competitive and anything which hinders this competitiveness should be investigated and removed. To attain its full potential two problems must have the Minister's attention. First there is the problem of having to work to an EEC quota. This is a crucial factor and everything possible must be done to get agreement on a larger quota. Secondly, there is the problem of the high cost of electricity to Irish Steel which is 30 per cent above the European average. I understand that they paid £7 million to the ESB in the year 1983-84 and a further increase in energy costs must be expected next year.
Since the foundation of Irish Steel there is now the third generation working there contributing to the welfare of the industry. There have been excellent labour relations all down the years. It is our duty to build up confidence in Irish Steel and all the necessary co-operation must be given to both management and workforce to ensure the viability and efficiency of this great industry.
I welcome this Bill. I do so because I believe here we are doing the right thing. Here we are taking the right step. It is imperative that we should do so. I am fully aware of the seriousness of the decision we are taking. We are allocating approximately £90 million of taxpayer's money to Irish Steel. We are supposed to be the custodians of that money, the custodians of the public purse as it is called. We have not always made the best and wisest expenditure of these moneys in the past. Let us hope this expenditure is wise. Let us hope it will return a dividend.
Looking at Irish Steel in perspective and in context the industry has been there before I came into existence. Hopefully it will still be there long after I have ceased to exist. The industry has met with misfortune down through the years. Its base is Cobh and Cobh has now become the biggest town in East Cork. That has been the evolution as a result of the introduction of the Irish Steel industry to that area. The town has developed as a consequence.
Now Irish Steel has its problems as well as its successes. The worst problems came in the 1970s as a result of our entry into the EEC when access to free trade had to be taken into account. It also became apparent in the seventies that the plant was obsolete. In the late seventies it became abundantly clear that if the plant were to survive, given the huge losses it had suffered to date in 1978, there would have to be a complete restructuring of the plant. New plans were drawn up. We are now trying to come to terms with that restructured plant. There were serious errors in the original plan. When the new plan was finalised in mid-1981 the overall cost was in the region of £23 million. That was a costly mistake. Indeed there were many costly mistakes made in regard to Irish Steel. That being so we are in a situation now where Irish Steel owes a huge sum of money, namely, £99 million, a sum guaranteed by the State. Were Irish Steel to close in the morning the bill would have to be picked up by the taxpayer.
I believe Irish Steel should not be closed in the morning because of its past. Its recent past has been very successful. That has been abundantly proved by reports. Its operation record over the past four years has been very good and to date losses have been going down consistently over the years. In 1980-81 Irish Steel lost approximately £8.2 million. In 1981-82 it lost £6.4 million. In 1982-83 it lost £5.7 million and this year the projected loss will be £4.9 million. Given the much improved operations in recent years there is more evidence still to show that Irish Steel can become viable. Its marketing over the last few years has been highly successful. It has entered many new markets in Europe and there is still room for expansion in that area.
I am glad the question of electricity has arisen in relation to Irish Steel because this is a problem which does not affect only Irish Steel. It affects every industry throughout the country. It is impossible to expect industry to make healthy profits when one remembers the kind of electricity bill with which industry finds itself faced. I know the Minister has made several efforts in this regard and I know he will continue to do his utmost to ensure that cheaper electricity can be made available to our important industrial base, thereby ensuring the profitability of that all-important base.
In recent years the world market for steel has been very depressed. It is still depressed but there are small indications now of an eventual upturn. That should give hope to Irish Steel. The industry employs a workforce of 660. This workforce can in no way be blamed for the problems of the industry. Everyone in Irish Steel does an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. The problems are not problems on the floor of the plant. They are not current. It is past problems with which Irish Steel are endeavouring to cope. That is why it is in the national interest that the Government provide the necessary finance to clear that debt. It is adding smoke to the fire. Year after year the interest rates have been increasing, and this is the only way in which that burning fire can be quenched. It is the last chance the Government have of placing Irish Steel in a viable position because after the end of this year the Government can no longer make any financial contribution to them. However, I feel it will not be necessary for them to do so. The risk element involved in this Bill today is of the order of £5 million, one well worth taking, in the light of evidence from Europe, from the Commission's report, the annual reports of Irish Steel itself, indeed all of the evidence available to us. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
I shall be very brief because I am aware that other Deputies wish to speak.
I hope the Government are not saving Irish Steel only because of the danger of having to pay £99 million in guarantees. I would hope their commitment is greater than that. Probably it is under the present Minister.
If Irish Steel should close there will be no hope of a private company, national or international, taking it over and keeping it viable. If an international company did take it over it would be for the purpose of closure in order to allow them use their full capacity. Therefore, if it is not kept open by the State then it will close. It is of great importance to the Cork area, particularly after the major closures of Fords and Dunlops, that Irish Steel with their workforce of 630 be kept viable.
One basic point I want to make is that Irish Steel are now at their most efficient and modern juncture and, if allowed work to full capacity, can be viable. If they are not allowed work at full capacity then they will not be viable, when we will be in the very difficult position outlined by the Minister of being at the mercy of market forces. It is vital that the Minister negotiate so that the quota system be removed and they be allowed operate at full capacity. I do think that can be achieved. Sometimes, perhaps, we underestimate what we can achieve in Europe. Some time ago, when capacity was increased from 135,000 to 350,000 tonnes a year, the Government of the time succeeded in negotiating so that Irish Steel could take over the capacity usurped by an old French steel mill that had been closed down. Therefore, Irish Steel was allowed to continue at full capacity.
We are the most depressed region in the EEC. Cork is our most industrialised area and, at the same time, our most depressed industrial area. Therefore, there are strong arguments for allowing Irish Steel, now that they are efficient, to work at maximum capacity. If the Minister just sits back and allows them merely to tick over, they will go to the wall; I do not see how they can remain in business. But if the Minister has the commitment to negotiate for the removal of quotas, allowing Irish Steel to demonstrate their efficiency and operate at maximum capacity, then they can remain in business, particularly if the Government allow an upturn in our construction industry which will also be of assistance to them. I would advocate that some of our major construction companies, like McInerneys and the Rohan Group, who are operating abroad should be asked to negotiate with Irish Steel so that those companies would use their steel for their construction work abroad.
I do not think the provisions of this Bill will ensure that Irish Steel remain in business. It will help them at present, but if the Minister negotiates for maximum capacity, with removal of the quota and also for an upturn in the construction industry, then they can continue viable for a long time.
I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill. It would be a disaster had Irish Steel to close. But we must view the situation in the light of these £99 million already having been guaranteed which will have to be paid at some stage. No doubt the restructuring of the company will be of some benefit to them in achieving progress. The major question that must be posed is: what will happen to them next year or the year after? I believe the company will still make a loss — the latest figure was £4.9 million plus depreciation. It must be remembered that in any commercial concern depreciation is a normal constituent of a profit and loss account which cannot be discounted.
The important question is: what will happen from January next when the Government will no longer be allowed by the EEC to give assistance to the company? I do not foresee Irish Steel getting into a profitable situation in the short-term, so there will be tremendous pressure on them in ensuing years and it is vitally important that the Government prepare for those years. If Irish Steel cannot survive alone it is essential that the Government plan for their replacement by other industries in the area. Perhaps it is not good to be talking like this, but we must view the real situation. It must be remembered that there have been many closures already in the Cobh and Cork areas. We must realise that if Irish Steel cannot make their mark on European markets or make profits then the position will not be as bright as the Minister endeavoured to portray in the course of his remarks.
I, too, welcome this Bill. Despite this massive investment by the State Irish Steel's viability cannot be guaranteed in that we are dependent on our EEC quota and are subject to energy costs which are beyond the control of the company. These matters will have to be tackled on both fronts by our MEPs and the State itself. The Department of Energy will have to endeavour to reduce energy costs to vital industries such as Irish Steel. Deputy Mac Giolla said, and I agree with him, that Irish construction firms working abroad should be encouraged to use Irish steel. But there is an inherent problem in that suggestion in that in some of the countries in which those companies operate there is a closed-door attitude toward imports of steel. In fact, the United States is the greatest offender in that area.
The immediate effect of this injection into Irish Steel has been on the morale of the workforce who have been most concerned about their future in recent years, the future of the industry, and which has affected their performance in recent times. Indeed, the chairman of the company referred to the increase in the rate of absenteeism from 6.7 per cent in 1981-82 to 8.4 per cent in 1982-83. We should see a turn-around in that situation as a result of this vote of confidence on the part of the Government because nothing undermines the confidence of a workforce more than the threat of unemployment. I would hope that we are moving away from that situation. This is borne out by the fact that in the course of recent years, since the consultants first moved in and came forward with three different reports, there has been a gradual but significant improvement in the company situation. On each of the three occasions confidence was growing. The final report leaves us in no doubt that the company can be viable if the quota is increased. Despite the overall cost of £26 million, this mini-mill, as it is called, at Haulbowline has definite advantages over a larger type of mill in that it can be adapted to the production of various types of bars, 90 in all I believe, in a very short time. That can reduce costs significantly and lead to better customer service. It also has the capacity to provide the bars in lengths which up to now have posed a few technical problems.
I join with the other Members in welcoming this Bill and I give it my hearty support.
I welcome the Bill and the funding of Irish Steel. I am glad that at last the Minister has seen fit to come to the aid of the Cork area and that we are moving away from the austerity of this time of recession. If we have not confidence to build up industry at such a time we will not have the base when brighter times come. As a Deputy from the Cork constituency I can say that the Seán Lemass era was the period when the industrial base for our constituency and county was built up. He was a great believer in Irish Steel. In relation to the 1960 Bill introduced by Deputy Jack Lynch when Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Official Report records a fine contribution by the late Deputy Martin Corry who had worked late and early to salvage that mill from closure and private enterprise and brought it into the State enterprise sector. I am glad that it still survives. As Deputy Myra Barry has said, it gives an industrial base to the town of Cobh and provides 650 jobs and many jobs in the service area also. It is an industry we can ill afford to lose and for that reason we can only welcome this measure.
Have we gone far enough in the development of that industry? We are only paying the debt and we should be providing for further expansion in that type of industry. We are shortsighted. Perhaps the Minister should have a further look, as he is becoming more magnanimous in his approach to the industrial scene in Cork——
The Deputy must not have been listening much to my speech.
I am giving him a word of encouragement. It is a pity that we have to travel abroad for consultants and that we have not our own expertise.
The overrun in capital expenditure cannot be tolerated in the semi-State or any sector in the public area. We must have corrective action and even legislation to protect us and our taxpayers from this type of thing. I have said that this is a model plant with a very good workforce and it has a good product. Many of us have experience of using Irish Steel's products and they have done an excellent job for the agricultural community as well as for industry. They provide a very essential service in that they take up all the scrap from all our scrap merchants who would have no outlet if the worst came to the worst for Irish Steel. In that way they give another important service which provides many jobs. They are the biggest user of energy in the country and in recent times have taken some natural gas. I believe that with a mix of both, this industry will be saved and will be very successful in the future.
I am calling Deputy Crowley. I am anxious to get the Minister in. We have amendments on Committee Stage and we will need ten minutes at least. I ask the Deputies to co-operate with me.
Do I understand that you are letting the Minister in at 4.20 p.m.?
I will give the information to the Deputy directly and correctly. Many questions have been asked of the Minister on Second Stage, many from your side of the House, and I am anxious to get the Minister in to enable him to reply to the questions raised. I was hoping, with the co-operation of all here, to allow him in for ten minutes to answer the questions to conclude Second Stage, to deal with the amendments on Committee Stage and finalise the Bill at 4.30 p.m. That is on the Order of Business.
I do not know what the Order of Business is for today. I do not remember anything being read about this morning on the Order of Business that the Minister would be in ten minutes before the conclusion. Do not waste any more of the time that is not being made available to us on this side.
Does the Deputy not want any replies?
I am disappointed that Members came in here today and took more than five minutes, spoke for ten minutes and said nothing. That was before we broke for Question Time. A number of us here wish to contribute very quickly if given the time. I am objecting to the Minister being called at 4.20 p.m., so denying us three minutes, two minutes, one minute. I disagreed with that. I see no order in the House that suggests that the Minister should come in. This is a very important consideration.
I am making every effort to get everyone in but, as Deputy Lyons said, Members went beyond the time we thought they should have taken. I had no control over it.
It is selfish.
I will give Deputy Lyons a couple of minutes of my time.
I thank the Deputy.
I welcome this Bill for a number of reasons. This is a commitment to the Cork region. We are aware of the difficult position in Cork, but this is a further commitment of this Government allied to that of the task force who reported recently and some of whose recommendations have already been acted upon. This is the kind of commitment the people are looking for in the Cork area. One would like to say a number of things at considerable length. One thing that has been mentioned in connection with Irish Steel is the cost of the ESB etc. I understand that the Minister for Energy will be making recommendations to the Government very soon with a view to at least giving an indication of providing a formula by which the prices of the ESB will be reduced. This will make Irish steel more competitive. The other area that would need some attention is the quota system. The quota should be increased and if the Minister can use his good offices to ensure that that will be done then the workforce and management of Irish Steel will get the kind of help they require to make sure that they will not alone survive but prosper again. The commitment of the Minister here today to the workforce, the management of Irish Steel and the whole area of east Cork can do nothing but good and as a result one can visualise Irish Steel going from strength to strength. I will give the remainder of my time to Deputy Lyons as he is from the Cork area.
Ní mór dom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le mo chara ón chontae de bharr go raibh sé gairid toisc nach bhfuil mórán ama againn. Tá mé ag chuidiú leis an Bhille seo atá chomh tábhachtach don chontae agus don tír ar fad.
Many of us, including my colleague, Deputy Wallace, from the constituency of Cork North-Central, have waited all day and I would appreciate if he could be accommodated for even one minute. In that respect I cut out much of what I intended to say. I will be briefer than brief, níos gairide ná gairid. All of this money is already committed. This money is relieving this State-owned company of the need to meet interest payments out of trading. If I have any condemnation it is of the way that interest has accumulated to such an extent that much of this money is being paid in interest. Who is making money out of Irish Steel? The figures projected for 1983-84 show a total loss of £21 million — £4.1 million for depreciation, £4.9 million for operating loss and the remaining £12 million on interest. If this Bill serves no other purpose than the elimination of that stranglehold of interest, it will be well worthwhile.
The EEC has been referred to a number of times in the context of this Bill. The staff of Irish Steel and myself have received a commitment from our European member, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, that he will ensure in every way possible in the European Parliament the continuance of Irish Steel. The workforce at the plant know that its continuance is without question both in the national and local interest and that, as the consultants' report indicates, the company can be a viable institution.
I thank Deputy Crowley for accommodating me. Perhaps the Minister would give the same consideration to Deputy Wallace so that he might make a short contribution to this Bill.
The Deputy will have to be brief.
It would be an insult to my intelligence to try to contribute to this debate in the two minutes remaining before the Minister is due to conclude. This situation has been brought about by the tactics of the Opposition. Deputy Allen left the Chamber for the purpose of encouraging some of his colleagues to come in and take part in the debate so that Deputies such as myself would not be enabled to participate in the debate.
I did not leave the Chamber at any time in the past 30 minutes.
I have no intention of contributing in the space of two minutes to a debate which is of such importance to Cork.
Is the Deputy contributing to the debate?
No, except to protest at the tactics adopted by people on the other side.
On a point of order, I did not leave the House during the past 30 minutes.
The Chair has no control over the movement of Deputies in or out of the House.
A number of questions have been asked about performance in the 1983-84 marketing year both in regard to the volume of sales and the revenue. The performance in the first nine months of that marketing year have been up to projection in terms both of volume and of revenue. A report on the last three months of the year is not yet available.
A number of Deputies asked about the overrun and about the causes for it. There is a significant variety of causes contributing to the overrun which unfortunately time does not permit me to deal with. I was asked about the obtaining of compensation. Compensatión was obtained under the insurance provisions in respect of certain of the design faults and that compensation amounted to £1.5 million. However, I understand it is not possible to obtain compensation in respect of what are described as general design shortcomings.
Deputy Allen and others referred to absenteeism in the company. In this respect the workforce must improve their record. We are talking of jobs which historically have been bought at a very high price and a good attendance record is the best available measure of a worker's appreciation of his employment. The record at Irish Steel in this respect has not been perfect. During recent discussions with the chairman of the company I have asked him to ascertain what he can do to improve performance in this area. I will do everything possible to obtain the additional quotas for this company which are essential to its survival and to its reaching the viability that is necessary. This is something that will have to be negotiated not only with the Commission but also with the Governments of each of the other member states whose decision will be conveyed at the Council of Ministers.
Deputy Ahern asked what the situation will be if the loss is continued beyond the period covered by the present injection of funds. Clearly, the answer is that in that situation the company would close. That is why it is so important for everyone concerned to use this last opportunity to the full to ensure that the company do not close.
A number of Deputies referred to the industry being strategic and said we should maintain it on strategic grounds. I do not accept that argument. I do not believe any industry of this kind is justified solely on strategic grounds. The decision I took was a commercial one. It was not influenced by social or political considerations. It was a commercial decision on the basis of our owing this money and, in the light of the various reports available to us, it looked more likely that if the company continued they would make some contribution towards paying back the money given to them in the past whereas in the event of closure all that money would fall due to be paid without there being any contribution from the company.
It is clear that this Bill is not providing for £89 million of taxpayer's money to be given to Irish Steel. By this Bill we are converting into equity debts the company already owe and which are entirely guaranteed by the taxpayer anyway. They will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. Unfortunately that is what is happening in this case.
It is still taxpayers' money.
As I said in another forum, it is not possible to rewrite history. These debts have been incurred. It would have been eminently desirable that they had not been incurred, but they are guaranteed by the taxpayer and we must make a commercial decision on the situation as we find it.
I thank all those Deputies who have contributed in such a constructive manner to the debate. I have not been able to answer all the questions asked, but if any Deputy particularly wants a response on any matter I shall accommodate him, on his indicating that wish, either immediately or in writing.