I should like to thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to raise the matter of the present position of the B & I, something I regard as a very important matter. The B & I are the only State shipping company left to us. The ICL are at the moment in the never-never land of receiverdom and, consequently, there is an obligation on us to look with particular attention at the parlous state of the B & I. As they are our only fully State owned shipping company as of now there is all the more reason why we should nurture and try to preserve the company. In common with other people I am exceptionally worried about the turn of events in the B & I recently.
We know that the workers have been committed to the company and that the House is anxious to have a fully lean and commercially viable company which adds to our serious consideration of the matter. I asked for this opportunity to raise the matter not to be critical or to raise cain in any particular area. There are many plans for making the company commercially viable. I commended a plan in the House and submitted it to the Minister as being one which would succeed in the objective of making the operations of the B & I commercially viable. That plan was elaborated under the chairmanship of Mr. Boland when he was chairman of the B & I. There is now a plan which emanated from Mr. Alex Spain, the new chairman, backed by his private consultancy firm, Zeus Consultancy which, I presume, is the plan under consideration now.
However, there is one way that we cannot make the B & I commercially viable, one way that is not the correct way and that is to have a strike. For that reason I must say how much I regret that the SUI have gone on strike at a time when a new corporate plan is being negotiated I cannot see how that can do anything but damage to the country, the company and the workers in general.
It is not my intention to raise any hackles in this debate but I must refer to the gratuitous attacks the Minister made on the SUI at a time when these negotiations were getting under way. That cannot have been helpful. I am not saying that those comments justified the workers going on strike but I do not think it was the politic thing to do or something that helped the position in any way. Anybody who has any responsibility with regard to unions of one kind or another will realise that the human factor is very important, that negotiation is better than war, that jaw, jaw is better than war, war as a neighbouring leader once said. For that reason attacking a union before the negotiations got under way was not the politic thing to do. The strike will damage the company and there is a grave danger of our losing our last State-owned shipping concern. Everybody should be told that and should be impressed by this danger. There are predators waiting to take up the business on the Irish Sea. There are foreign interests prepared to take up that business and for that reason there is an added onus on management, workers and the Minister for Communications to get this sorry mess cleared up so that profitable trading can be developed without any undue delay.
We want to own the ships; we want to have the ships under the Irish flag. We want to have those services fully Irish owned and at the command of the Irish Government. We are aware that at the time of the Malvinas War the British Government told shipping companies that they needed ships to bring troops, munitions, food and materials down to the South Atlantic and, while I do not wish to sound alarmist about this, whatever transport that exists between this country and the United Kingdom could by a nod be taken away leaving no services on the Irish Sea.
The group of unions, other than the SUI, who are involved in the B & I have circulated to all Members a copy of their counter proposals to those prepared and put to the board of directors by the Zeus Consultants and Mr. Spain. One of the things they asked for was more time. From what I can gather, the Seamen's Union of Ireland, as late as Tuesday I think, were having discussions with Mr. Spain and the B & I. There was not a breakdown which would have, or was likely to have, sparked off the strike. That makes the strike all the more puzzling. The group which consist of all the unions other than the SUI asked for more time. They felt that an agreement could be hammered out in discussion between management and workers if a little less rigidity were applied.
The group want a relaxation with regard to the time limit on reduction of the number of people employed by the B & I. They think that cutting 525 workers out just at once is much too drastic, that the same result can be achieved with very little, if any, loss to the State by early retirements, non-replacement of people who had reached the age of retirement, voluntary severance and so forth. That is the path of reason which any reasonable person would be anxious to follow. They have also suggested that special attention should be paid to people who are young enough to be retrained and that other Government Departments could be involved in making provision for the retraining of people who would have to move out of the B & I.
There should be an analysis of the Dún Laoghaire switch. It does not seem to make sense when it is indicated that there would be a saving of £100,000 but that 59 jobs would go. That would mean 59 unemployment benefit payments, redundancy payments and so forth. The saving, in the short-term anyway, does not seem to justify that switch. Time should be given to think it out, to come to some kind of arrangement. As a result of the Dublin Cargo Handling and the deep sea dockers coming to an agreement, the port of Dublin is improving its atmosphere — let us put it that way — for business over what is has been in the recent past, when there was loss of business to other ports as far north as Carrickfergus. That is an argument that should be put on to the scales with regard to the switch in favour of Dublin port. We discussed plans for the development of Dublin port in this House recently and in that context the switch to Dún Laoghaire should be thought about.
The privatisation of road transport, although the unions argue that would mean the loss of 76 jobs, does not mean necessarily that there will be that loss. If there were privatisation the company would need personnel and I presume experienced and efficient personnel would be taken over. I find all the arguments put forward by the unions to be reasonable. They say there should be discussions on possible public saving. The suggestion is discussion, negotiation and so forth about the proposal that the on-board functions should be privatised. About catering, the perfume business and duty-free spirits, I am not au fait with the accounts in connection with these and neither is anybody in this House. The Minister may very well have the report from Zeus Consultancy on this but if, as is rumoured there are major losses on that operation I think it is a public scandal. That should not happen. This is an area which would require special attention and I am not sure if the group of unions have any helpful suggestions in that regard.
Again I express doubts about the cartel. The company with whom B & I are forming this cartel are an American company, very much involved in a high percentage of return on investment. I am not criticising them for that, but that is the scene. I think B & I would be losers in this regard if, as they propose, they sell their ship and rely on the ship belonging to Sealink, even though they get a 50-50 cut of the profits on that route. There are financial obligations, as far as I understand, with regard to Milford Haven, in that we have undertaken to pay a certain sum of money. From what I gather it would take £8 million to get out of Milford Haven. If we make savings, or even profits — and that would really be the operative word — on the southern corridor, it will probably take most if not all of those savings to get out of Milford Haven and pay the debts in two years.
The group have suggestions about absenteeism. I cannot see anything that is not reasonable in these suggestions. They say that management and unions should get together and hammer out an agreement with regard to absenteeism, which seems to be a serious problem in this business. As part of the rationale they see the group as partners in the development of the company. That is a very sober, responsible and admirable philosophy for a group of unions to have. I should like to know the age spread of the staff, both on-shore and sea-going, because that would be important with regard to the suggestions of voluntary severance, waiting until people retired and so on.
I asked a question in the House, but the Minister was unavoidably absent. The Minister of State indicated the official answer but all the negotiations and plans indicated that there was a requirement of £43 million — over what period was not stated — of equity in order to get the plan going and make it a reality. Are Zeus Consultancy reporting to the Minister? If not, they should be, because he is paying that firm. Was the plan that Mr. Spain put to the board the fruit of suggestions from that firm? If so, has he any commitment to the expenditure of the £43 million? The taxpayers paying Zeus Consultancy are entitled to know exactly what the consultants are advising and what commitment the Minister has made with regard to the equity for the new company.
The Minister for Health, Deputy Desmond, welcomed the proposals for the new corporate plan for the B & I. I cannot see how he welcomed them without having studied them. Did the Government study them and did they approve the expenditure of £43 million if it were linked to the suggestions that Zeus Consultancy and Mr. Spain were putting to the board? How could the Minister say he did approve of it — and he said it twice — if he had not studied it?
As I said at the outset, my purpose in raising this matter here is to say that it is the last shipping company we have effectively, that it is in danger, that it is the concern of this House that it should be saved for the nation. I am not here in a carping or critical mood. I simply want to get the Minister's view, to encourage the Minister to step in and try to save the B & I Line.
