First, I should like to indicate the basic Fianna Fáil policy in regard to the B & I as published in the last public policy document, the National Economic Plan, 1983-1987. Paragraph 22 of that report states:
The B & I line has been encountering serious financial problems in the recent past. Some of the principal reasons for these problems are outside the company's direct control, for example, fuel prices, intensive price competition and stagnation in tourism. Other financial problems, such as the company's high financial charges, stem from the overambitious investment programme undertaken since 1978. A vigorous commercial approach is the only way for the company to ensure efficient and profitable services. To this end the company is now restructuring its operations. The performance of all the company's services is being monitored on a monthly basis and the scope for further economies is being examined. A radical retrenchment and rationalisation of B & I's operations is necessary. Timely and decisive action will be needed to ensure that all services will be operated on an economic basis and the company's cost overheads significantly reduced.
It is interesting to note what has changed since that plan was published. For example, all services were mentioned in that plan but since then the Cork-Pembroke service has been wiped out. I have no doubt that Members from Cork constituencies will deal with that matter when they get the opportunity. The Dublin-Holyhead and Dublin-Liverpool routes are still maintained. We said that all services will be operated but, in accordance with the plan mentioned by the Minister in regard to operations on the southern corridor, we do not have a ship. At the moment the Innisfallen is filling in until the day comes, if it ever comes, when a foreign company will provide a jumbo ship to operate on that route.
In the course of our plan we mentioned fuel prices and as the House and the world knows the cost of fuel has dropped very considerably since. This week's issue of The Economist indicates on a year for year basis a drop in the standard crude oil price quoted at 50.3 per cent since this time last year. Therefore, an aggravating cause of the company's financial problems of 1982 has been removed not by any direct action of the Government, not by any direct action of an expensive consultancy, Zeus consultancy and not by any direct action of the new chairman/chief executive but by world economic factors.
I considered it better to refer to the position the Minister found when he took office late in 1982 because an attempt has been made in the House, and outside, to indicate that the Coalition were the first to be concerned about the economic position of the B & I. That is not so and anybody can check the paragraph I quoted to learn what the Government's policy was when the plan was prepared. Also mentioned at that time as a factor contributing to the economic difficulties of the B & I was competition. I know that "competition" is a big word in all areas of transport, air, sea and land. It is a very hot issue but I cannot say that the arrangement made by the chairman and board of B & I in this instance is the ideal one in regard to competition.
As the House knows, there is a cosy arrangement between B & I and Sealink. Instead of competition we have what is tantamount to a cartel, and this is worrying many people in the transport business, passenger and freight. We have a 50-50 share of the profits on the Southern Corridor, without a ship. That is part of a plan. They have the Innisfallen pending the building of the “jumbo”. There is no competition on the Dublin-Holyhead or the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead routes. The customer is not likely to benefit from this cosy arrangement. Certain consumer interests have brought the matter to the attention of the EC, the sector involved in the competition theory.
Those two major sectors in the 1982 Fianna Fáil policy document have been removed in diverse ways in so far as the customer is concerned. Interest rates have fallen considerably since then and, if we are to believe most recent reports, the tendency will be for them to fall further.
Those three factors must be taken into consideration when discussing the request by the Government to provide £38 million for B & I. A plus factor is the present position of the company at the port of Dublin. The port has been through a period of strikes and disruptions. In the first six months of the pre-Government chairmanship of the B & I board, the then board were directly on target, but this was interrupted and put out of joint totally by conditions in the port, by strikes and disruptions. That climate has improved, and that is a wind blowing in favour of the company.
I will refer later to the Minister's short speech in which he made some points which need to be taken up. I will deal now with the Bill. There are two major sections in it. The first proposes to raise the ordinary shares of £1 from 58 million to 96 million. That is the essence of the Bill. In his speech the Minister said the required amount would be £38 million, but the board had requested £43 million. The Minister did not make any attempt today to justify the £38 million, nor did he say the extra £5 million petitioned by the board is not available. I cannot see why the remainder of the amount the board requested for the running of a viable company will not be forthcoming.
Section 2 of the Bill is the most extraordinary provision to come before the House — I will return to this later. It proposes to arrogate powers to the Minister which he should not have the effrontery to arrogate to himself. I will be moving for the deletion of that section.
The next point, referred to in the media yesterday, is that we have not got the 1984 Annual Report from B & I, not to speak of 1985. I should like to know what the position is with regard to those two reports. Before coming to a conclusion as to whether we should make available £38 million of the taxpayers' money to the company we should have those reports before us. There were rumoured losses in 1984, and in 1985 the rumoured losses were £6 million. There is talk of a loss in 1986, despite the Minister's indication in his speech as follows:
... to take whatever steps are necessary, with the agreement of the Board of the B & I Company and subject to the approval of the Minister and taking account of the need to maintain Irish participation in cross-channel passenger and freight services, to restore the company to profitable operation by 31 December 1986.
If the Minister was referring to the whole of 1986, that is disheartening information. As I said, if the annual reports of the company were available we would know whether there is substance in those rumours. The profit forecast for 1987 is very insubstantial indeed.
I put it to the House why it is being asked for this amount of money before all the beating of drums and the bualan sciath but not before a very expensive consultant company had been employed to advise on this plan. I should like to know why it was wrong at that time to invest £38 million when there was a chance of maintaining certain extra services not now available and employment which has been cut, but it is right now, even though the company are not making a profit yet. Apropos the consultant firm, I understand the Department will be paying their fees. Consequently, the House is entitled to know what that firm have done or are doing for the taxpayers' money which they will be getting. There is a grey area but, with due respect to the Chair, a rule will be quoted telling us that the Minister has no responsibility in this, that or the other regard. Despite the fact that the House is providing the funds and the equity, there is no way we can get information in certain areas. We should be entitled to know the value we are getting for the money we are spending on Zeus investments since it is not the board who are paying but the Department.
I will proceed now to an examination and criticism of the arrangements that are being put in place with the aid of the £38 million we are asked to provide. It is important that we get replies here to our questions. Otherwise I despair of getting any answers. Now on Second Stage of this Bill I have the opportunity to get replies from the Minister and I shall pursue him until I get answers to various questions that, I regret to say, have been rejected as being outside the Minister's responsibility in regard to this semi-State body. I would also add that I get the same response in regard to other semi-State bodies.
I should like to know what are the economics of the Dublin-Liverpool run. It is the longest run in which B & I are involved. Is it making a profit? It was argued it is important for us to have the short sea route because nowadays customers are opting for the short sea route rather than the long run. The House is entitled to know what it is subsidising and we are entitled to know the economics of the Dublin-Liverpool run.
In the plans as announced, various decisions have been made with regard to the Dublin-Holyhead run. Has the decision been made to move from Dublin to Holyhead so that both B & I and Sealink would operate out of Holyhead? With regard to Holyhead itself, I understand that the fine provisions at Holyhead have been totally provided by this State during the years. Am I correct in saying that the facilities available to B & I at Holyhead are not to the same high standard as the facilities provided at Dún Laoghaire? I have heard criticisms of the marshalling space and the vehicle parking space available at Holyhead. If we are entering into a cosy arrangement with Sealink, now owned by an American, we should be sure that we know all the facts. This American is a hard, tough businessman, and more power to him. He is in the business to make profits and I am quite sure he will ruthlessly cut services on the Irish Sea if he is not making a profit. That is his philosophy, but my contention is that we have to watch out carefully in that situation. There should be an insistence by us, either at Government level or at company level, for reciprocal facilities at Holyhead.
With regard to the financial arrangements, are we talking about a 50/50 split or does that hold only on the southern corridor? Two ships are operating now to Fishguard and the jumbo is to come into operation. Has a 50/50 split been agreed on the Dublin-Holyhead and Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead services or will B & I keep the profits they make on the Dublin-Holyhead run and Sealink keep the profits they make on the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead run?
On a previous occasion I tried unsuccessfully to get a reply to a question regarding the train link to the B & I service. Again, that is a Government matter, not merely a company matter. It will require governmental clout to deal with that problem. I think the trains are geared specially to the Sealink services rather than to the B & I services. It is not possible to get to London as early on the B & I morning service — the Dublin-Holyhead-London route — as it is on the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead-London run. That area will be vital in marketing and it is very important. Marketing will be the top priority in selling the routes and in selling internally on the ships in future. This is an area where we have been weak in the past and we must improve if we want to have a profitable operation.
What is there by way of consumer protection with regard to the Dublin-Holyhead and Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead routes and also in the reverse direction? Is there anything to protect the consumer? At the end of his speech the Minister mentioned that an increase in prices was necessary to sustain the service. There are severe complaints about the perecentage increase that was added recently. The argument was used that because of the cut-throat competition fares had fallen very low and, as a result, the service got shabby and things had gone wrong. It was said this was the reason for an increase that would be three or four times the inflation rate for 1986. I should like the Minister's views on that. The Minister's speech was very pared down; it was not full of information for the House and for the taxpayer. I should like to know also if the B & I operation from Dublin to Holyhead is profitable. Of course, that is linked to the answer to the question whether the profits are pooled, as is done sometimes in the case of airlines even though one or other of the parties may carry more passengers.
I wish to deal now with the Rosslare area, which I visited yesterday. To my mind it has potential for great development in association with B & I if we keep Irish interests up front. When it starts operating the Channel tunnel will change the graph with regard to transport to the end of the century. The B & I preferably with their own boat — arrangements do not make any provision for a B & I boat on that run — will be in line for increased traffic to the Channel tunnel and from there to various parts of Europe.
The criticisms of the present arrangement are many and varied and it is important they should be put on record. There is an even more punishing cartel from the customers' point of view here because we will end up with one ship belonging to an American, admittedly employing some Irish people. If for sound, capitalist, economic principles he decides to close it down — as has happened with subsidiaries of companies in manufacturing industry and for reasons which sometimes have damn all to do with the circumstances existing in this country — and sell the ship, no Irish ship will be plying the route from Ireland to Fishguard. If we have invested a good deal of capital in the development of Rosslare by that time, we will be the laughing stock of the transport world with a developed port, it may be a free port, but no ship leaving from it.
Is the jumbo on or off? There are rumours in the Rosslare area that that part of the plan is being scrapped, that the proprietors of Sealink are not anxious to have a jumbo sized — I do not have a definition of that yet — ship built and put on that route. We have no place unfortunately in which to have this ship built since Verolme Cork Dockyard closed. Belfast, hopefully, might be able to build the ship, although it is likely that they will be too busy to do so from the reports we read in the newspapers.
As far as train links are concerned, dissatisfaction has been expressed about scheduling in such a way as to get maximum benefit from the train service. Yesterday I got information in the Rosslare area that there was a big improvement in that service and I hope that is correct. The Innishfallen is operating there together with the Sealink vessel. It is not an old ship. Many people are knocking it but it is a 4,849 tonne vessel that was built in 1969. It is rumoured that the Innishfallen and the St. Brendan will continue to ply that route, and that the idea of the jumbo is scrapped. If that arrangement is continued, well and good. If not, I presume the Innishfallen will be put up for sale and will be a realised asset for the company in the near future. Not that the shipping market and the sale of the 72,000 tonne Panamax, the Irish Spruce, for £3.6 million, gives us any encouragement that B & I will have a great deal of funds if they put the Innishfallen on the market and sell it in the near future.
Freight was in the news yesterday. We were told that the B & I freight service was losing money, but I will come back to that point later. I have had complaints from individual Irish hauliers, and consequently competitors of B & I, that they did not get equal treatment so far as bookings and priorities in return journeys were concerned. This is a very serious charge. We are considering voting £38 million to that company and all they are entitled to as a company are the same rights of access to bookings, rates and so on as apply to other hauliers using the service. I have documentation on this subject. Naturally there is a serious temptation for B & I to give their own freight priorty but there is no justification for their doing so. In fact, the reverse is true. If we are voting money in this House for B & I that money should never be used to put them at a competitive advantage over other citizens who have invested their money in the haulage business. I have had similar type complaints — they are usually denied by the company — with regard to CIE. A haulier in my constituency said he was sure the State subsidy was being used to give CIE an unfair advantage. I am using that as a parallel illustration.
Now I come to the services on board B & I ships. A decision has been taken to give the franchise to a British company, which admittedly had been operating gift and perfume shops hitherto. I am sure they are a reputable firm, but we were told initially that Campbell Catering of County Dublin were to get this franchise. I do not know what happened in the meantime, but I should have thought it was an important consideration that an Irish company of proven efficiency should have been given preferential treatment in the award of this franchise. I have a special reason for emphasising that.
As I mentioned in the debate on shipping in this House earlier this year I carried out a personal survey of what was available on board a Sealink vessel between Dún Laoghaire and Holyhead. B & I are taking in a British company to provide these services. On the Sealink vessel not one single Irish product was advertised on the walls outside the shops. There was no marketing drive with regard to Irish products. Irish drinks were available in the duty free shop but on the walls six types of spirits were advertised and not one was an Irish product.
When Sealink was owned by the British Government one could see the logic of that because they were entitled to plug their own products, and one could admire them for that. Now, though, we have this cosy arrangement business. We are practically the same company as far as profits are concerned and now the owner of Sealink is not a British citizen. In those circumstances a new ball game has arisen. The House should direct the attention of the chairman and managing director and the board to this area, particularly in view of the fact that, as the Minister said in his speech, a good deal of money has been spent on refurbishing those areas of the ships that are plying.
I examined the gift shops and the jewellery section on board that same ship. Anybody who has any awareness at all will know that over the past ten or 15 years there has been a tremendous advance in silversmithery, goldsmithery, making of souvenirs and making of world class textile products. A very short walk from this House to the Kilkenny Design Workshops will indicate the range of goods of superior quality available that are manufactured in this country and of a high design. Not one single piece of jewellery on that ship at that time was made in Ireland. Most of it was from a Birmingham company that was mentioned. Again we are in this House considering a £38 million investment and we should be asking questions and stiffening the back of people who are involved in this area to see to it that there is a strong Irish products presence on board the ships. Our young artists have earned a great place. Anybody who mooches around all the little shops in this city, not to talk of Galway or Cork, will know how many bright young people are involved in this business particularly. Our medallists have won international recognition. There has been some talk of Ogham Crafts and the Aer Lingus commemorative medal having obtained international awards recently. Examples of the good work of our wood carvers, our potters and our people involved in textiles can be seen in Kilkenny Design Workshops by anybody who has a few minutes to spare or skips his lunch today. I do not want to labour that further, but we have made concessions to Sealink with regard to profits etc. and we should demand a quid pro quo across the board. We have taken job losses in this new arrangement with Sealink and we should concentrate our minds on making up for those job losses by giving work in other areas to other of our citizens.
When we produced our economic plan to the end of 1987, a paragraph of which I read out, Cork was being provided with one of the services of B & I. I mention this only en passant because I am sure the Cork Members will have something to say about this in their contributions to the debate. However, Munster tourism has been very upset by the fact that a sea link to Britain is no longer provided by any company now. Again I am sure that most economists would presume to be able to tell us exactly, even if there were a loss on the shipping, what the consequent gain would be in the tourism area. I mean that I cannot believe it is beyond the capabilities of an economist to tell us how much we would have to get on the roundabouts of tourism to make up for the loss on the swings of transport by boat to the country. Can that be quantified? I will not stress that further because, as I say, I expect that Deputy Michael Ahern and others will contribute with regard to Cork.
The Pembroke facility has been discontinued. There is to be no longer a presence, a trade to Pembroke. Nevertheless — I think I am right and I am asking the Minister to say whether I am right or wrong — there will be a payment to be made on a regular basis to Pembroke for facilities which we will be no longer using. With regard to Pembroke itself, those who have been using it for both freight and passengers have always indicated that the people in Pembroke are delighted to have as customers the B & I company. It has been remarked time and time again that they made distinct and strong efforts to please and satisfy the customers on that run. Before the decisions were taken a number of people from Pembroke were in touch with me, and I am sure with the Minister, and they wanted to make every effort possible to retain the service there. I can see how a decision might be taken to discontinue the service and how Pembroke would want to retain it — naturally, they are good business people — but I cannot see how we will be happy to continue to pay money for services at Pembroke and making no use of the facilities provided. I do not know whether private shipping companies could be encouraged to make use of the facilities or whether they would get preference in the use of Pembroke, but I must say that the people who came over here and who gave me copies of letters which they sent to Mr. Spain, Chairman and Managing Director of B & I, were very anxious to indicate that a profit making run from Rosslare to Pembroke was very much a possibility, and they complained that on occasion the difference between making a profit and making a loss was that space was not available for people who wanted to do bookings when that run was on between Rosslare and Pembroke. I quote from a copy of a letter to Mr. Spain which was sent to me by the Pembrokeshire District Council:
... we emphasised the grounds for our belief that the Pembroke/Rosslare route would show a profit turn round of £5.3 million if operated with an available suitable vessel and that this sum was considerably in excess of the £4 million profitability turn round claimed for rationalisation with Sealink on all three sea corridors.
Needless to say, they were making the strongest possible case for themselves, but I do not think that their submission got the consideration it should have got. I think that minds were already made up, were closed, and, consequently the kind of care and attention that the proposition deserved was not given.
As I said, I used the ferry to Pembroke — admittedly there were 50 of our own workers there — and I found them to be efficient and courteous and anxious to provide a service which is not always the case in regard to our own ships or has not been as far as Sealink were concerned in the past. Perhaps the Minister will indicate how much money will be provided for Pembroke and as the B & I operation to Pembroke is over, if there is any way in which Irish interests could make use of the facilities so that we would get something back for the money we are bound to keep on paying for some years ahead. I should like the Minister to indicate how many years that will be.
We lost 50 jobs at Pembroke and it is a recipe for despair to think that the House is now debating a proposal from the Minister to provide a sum of £38 million in equity for the B & I in a job cutting exercise rather than in increasing employment especially when unemployment is very high and emigration is getting heavily under way again. Young people who are studying marine engineering and marine sciences in general in the RTC in Cork and other places are entitled to some positive optimism on the part of the Government with regard to the future of our shipping.
There were supposed to be 59 job losses if the ferry was transferred from Dublin to Dun Laoghaire. What is the position in that regard? The 260 other people who lost their jobs ashore and afloat in the whole exercise cannot be catered for unless developments take place as a result of this investment by the Government in the B & I. Are there any British redundancies in Sealink? We have these cosy operations to Holyhead and Fishguard and I should like to know if it was only the Irish company which suffered redundancies.
The Minister referred to the new investment in his speech and gave specific examples. I know a big refurbishment job has been done with a view to improving services. I have notes here regarding damage to the Wicklow and the Tipperary which happened some time ago. I should like the Minister to indicate how much of that damage, which is supposed to amount to a substantial figure, is recoverable from insurance and what insurance company provided cover for the B & I at that time. The 1987 project objective seems to be to make a small profit of £0.5 million. A contingency fund of £3.5 million was also mentioned. I hope that means a profit of £4 million rather than the £0.5 million mentioned in various reports and speeches.
It is interesting to speculate on the possibility of the Innisfallen being sold and that depends on when delivery is taken of the new jumbo, if that ever happens. I understand there is a new departure in the freight area. Earlier on I mentioned specific complaints about treatment by hauliers of the freight drivers who are not employed by B & I. The last report I got said that the freight service had a turnover of £60 million and assets of £20 million but that it was supposed to be losing money. What is the position in regard to 1984? I do not know because the last annual report we got is for 1983. It is not good enough that we do not have a report for 1984 and 1985. How much money was lost in 1984 in freight? How much, if any, was lost in 1985? Perhaps we made a profit but the House would like to know the exact position. We are buying a pig in a poke in that we do not have annual reports for 1984 and 1985. At one time, as part of the reorganisation of the B & I, it was mentioned that all their trucking operations were to have outside contractors for maintenance which would be a cost reducing factor. Could the Minister give us information in that regard?
What is the position in regard to the Euro container service in the B & I? There was a proposal in this cosy agreement, of which we are so rightly critical, that the Sealink ro-ro was to be provided with facilities in Dublin ferry port. Has that happened? What is the quid pro quo? If we are giving something, are we getting something back? I mentioned the excellent businessman who now owns Sealink. He appreciated hard bargaining, is a hard bargainer himself and he would appreciate us, as Irish people interested in our own affairs and profits, being just as hard headed and tough as he is.
I wish to refer again to individual hauliers standing by in the middle of the night at B & I terminals at Fishguard, Holyhead or Liverpool who feel they have no status. The B & I effort is an open sesame. They are fellow drivers but one driver said he was standing around after midnight not knowing whether he would get on the boat. That is not a proper way to run a business and I should like the Minister to bring that to the attention of the chairman and the board of B & I.
There were rumours circulating in Rosslare yesterday that the B & I intended to purchase the Irish Continental Line this weekend. I know there are difficulties in regard to the sale of ICL and I outlined our party's policy in that regard. We want ICL maintained in Irish hands, public, private or public cum private. We are not particularly worried about the combination but this profit making company should be retained in Irish hands. Is any of the money which we are voting here earmarked for the purchase of ICL?
The figures, when added, are very tight. It seems that there is no money in this Vote, in this £38 million that we are being asked for. I would like to know if there is. Perhaps it is hidden. If we are prepared to sell the Irish Spruce, a 72,000 tonne dead weight ship, for £3.6 million — and that is national sabotage or a national scandal — perhaps we might be able to facilitate the purchase of the Irish Continental Line for a reasonable figure to guarantee that it will remain in Irish hands. These questions are being asked all the time in transport or shipping by people who have vital interests in that sector. I am not accusing the Minister of telling an untruth in the House but I am not 100 per cent sure that I got a full answer when I asked him if he had consultants' advice about the purchase of the Irish Continental Line by the B & I. I wonder if I got the whole truth. Did Zeus consultants advise the Minister as to whether B & I should purchase the Irish Continental Line or not? As I indicated earlier, as far as I know Zeus consultants are paid by the Department. Consequently, we cannot hide behind the excuse that the Minister has no responsibility and that it is the responsibility of the B & I board. If Zeus consultants are being paid directly by the Minister then we are entitled to know what advice they are giving. Were there any other consultants asked by the B & I or the Government to advise on the purchase by the B & I of the Irish Continental Line. We are entitled to the information. Has the Minister any advice with regard to whether the B & I should purchase the Irish Continental Line or not? It is an important question, it is a fair question and it is a question to which I am entitled to an answer from the Minister.
I come now to the section I said I would come back to, namely section 2, a section which we, as the main Opposition party are opposing rigiditus, absolutely. We are voting against it because I cannot understand how it is in the Bill at all. I will read it:
In determining the remuneration or allowances for expenses to be paid to its officers or servants or the terms or conditions subject to which such officers or servants hold or are to hold their employment, the Company shall have regard either to Government or nationally agreed guidelines which are for the time being extant, or to Government policy concerning remuneration and conditions of employment which is so extant, and, in addition to the foregoing,
—This is not just the sting in the tail but a kind of a torpedo—
the Company shall comply with any directives with regard to such remuneration, allowances, terms or conditions which the Minister for Communications may give from time to time to the Company with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service.
That is simply shocking. I do not understand it. I do not understand what it is doing in this Bill. Did the Minister not appoint a very expensive chairman and chief executive aided by a very expensive consultancy firm, and has he not got a board as well as a chief executive and other senior executives in the company to deal with this peculiarly and appropriately company matter? Why is the Minister usurping the functions of the board and the management of the company? Is there more expertise in the Department of Communications on industrial relations than is available to the chairman, chief executive, board of management or, for that matter, the Department of Labour?
It is one of the most ridiculous sections I have ever seen in a Bill in this House. Is the Minister satisfied, for example, that he is not in some way in conflict with company law on the matter? Surely the members of the board, the chairman and chief executive must feel uneasy with regard to their obligations. Surely they must feel uneasy as to what kind of responsibility can be pinned on them by this House or by the employees of the company if this power is being taken as it purports to be taken in this section of the Bill. I am asking the Minister to withdraw the section altogether. The appointment of the chairman and chief executive plus Zeus consultants by the Minister was, it is generally believed, a way of getting around the Devlin provisons with regard to salaries for chief executives. Obviously, if this section is put on the Statute Book, no such device will be available to the board or to the employees because the words do not need interpretation but are clear: "The company shall comply with any directives with regard to such remuneration, allowances, terms or conditions which the Minister for Communications may give from time to time to the company." So I am asking that section 2 should be deleted from the Bill. It is an arrogation of power which is fraught with danger for industrial relations and for the status and standing of boards of directors of companies. It has been a tendency in recent times to put a section to this effect into Bills. It is a graft that will not take; it is a graft that anyway will not produce a great deal of fruit in the field of industrial relations.
I would like to say a word with regard to B & I marketing. I have mentioned this in the House already. Special training should be given to the people who have direct personal contact with the public on board Irish-owned ships. Courtesy should be the theme of intensive courses. I say this because I am conscious that it is not the thing that is uppermost in one's mind when one uses any of the services of B & I, Sealink or ICL. It is linked into marketing. Emphasis will have to be placed on customer satisfaction and customer comfort. I have already mentioned my criticism of the lack of protection for consumer interests due to what is, in effect, a cartel on the Irish Sea. This is another area that management should concentrate on. I know of one instance where a young summer recruit, when a German passenger asked for some information, was told by a member of the staff not to spend too much time explaining, that the less they were told the less he would be persecuted. That is not an attitude which will develop business for us here; nor will it give us a good reputation internationally for services rendered.
Aer Lingus concentrated very heavily on the idea of the friendly airline. That is a good marketing ploy. They have made an effort to see to it that their staff live up to that guideline. They may not always do so, but it is important to have such an objective. It is important to instil the belief into potential customers that that is the sort of service which is available.
As far as B & I are concerned, it is important that special courses be given to people who have direct contact with the customers. They should be properly supervised with customers, to see that that kind of service is available. Another area to which we should pay some attention is the Eurodimension of B & I, which I mentioned earlier in relation to the challel tunnel. If B & I purchase ICL it becomes even more important. I am pleased with what has been stated about the strengthening of B & I management. Nothing but good can come of competent management in a strong position, and I do not mean a fascist or dictatorial position. They need strong management with objectives, who know where they are going and why.
Is there any talk of B & I acquiring a controlling interest in the Belfast ferries? These could be linked with the ICL deal, if such a decision is taken. From reports which I have received with regard to expenditure on the B & I boats, which expenditure is being covered by a section of the money being allocated here, I understand that a reasonably good job has been done. However, with reference to the Seafort Welding Company who got that job — and there were complaints that it did not go to a new and smaller reorganisation in Verolme Cork Dockyard — there are disturbing rumours that Seafort would not release the refurbished Leinster until the Government paid on the nail, which is an indication of the damage done in shipping circles by what happened in the case of Irish Shipping Limited. It is a repercussion and captains of ships and sailors say it can still be felt in shipping circles, whereas hitherto the flag and the name connected with any Irish shipping company commanded respect and were more than creditworthy
An aspect of the Bill to which one must advert since B & I are carrying so much freight — and I await some information from the reports of 1984 and 1985 and/or from the Minister as to how exactly they are doing in terms of cash at present — is that Bell's, a substantial freight company, have now been purchased by a Dutch concern. Again I am pointing out that we must be cautious to make sure that we maintain an Irish shipping influence. CMB of Belgium I gather are now operating, as far as freight is concerned, from Cork. I am mentioning these matters to point out potential development for Irish companies at this time.
I must pay tribute to the staff of B & I who earlier invested £300,000 in the company when the company needed such investment. The Minister for Finance introduced some provisions in this year's budget with regard to workers having shares in their company. This decision by the B & I workers in the past was an indication of their commitment to their company and is something which we should and could encourage for the future.
I think I have drawn attention to the fact that the original charter, so to speak, given by the Minister in May of 1985 was that the operation should become profitable by December 1986. I hope we have not postponed that for a further year. The co-operation arrangements I have dealt with in fair detail. Regarding the two year agreement, does this refer to 1986 to 1987 or 1985 to 1986? I think it is the former, but I should like confirmation on that. We should watch the new Sealink Company quite carefully. I am not in any way denigrating that company, their owner, their activities or their objectives, but self-interest demands that we should watch carefully what is going on. We should not walk ourselves into a two year agreement which could be used against us by a threat of termination at the end of the two years. We should keep an open mind, in our own interests.
I have already referred to the fact that the board's proposal originally was for £43 million. I presume they had justification for the other £5 million. What was the board's justification? What were the Minister's reasons for reducing the amount? Was it the reduction in fuel costs, or interest rates, or what? Would he let the House know this?
I am glad of the commitment in the Minister's speech to maintaining a strong Irish presence in shipping services to this country. Apart from the patriotic ones, there are the practical reasons also. He said: "The amount and phasing of the further equity injections will be closely related to the overall performance of the company against very challenging profit targets which the Minister has set for them."
I am wondering if there are profit targets set by the Minister which he did not mention. Would he be able to indicate when replying what the target is for 1987, for 1988 and so on? If he is going to pay out the money over the years 1987 to 1989 and has targets, then the House will be pleased to hear what those targets are, so that the House can keep an eye on the progress of the company with regard to achieving those targets. He said: "The other £13 million is being used to begin the process of restructuring the company's balance sheet by reducing the company's borrowings." Can the Minister tell us what the company's borrowings are at present? In the absence of the 1984-85 annual reports we can only make a guess based on what is in the 1983 report which may not be a true reflection of the company's borrowings.
The Minister devoted a considerable part of his speech to the sales area of car ferries. I have dealt with that from a different aspect. I would like the Minister to commnt on that and to indicate whether he thinks it is worth while to bring it to the notice of the chairman and the board of directors with regard to their future plans and ambitions for the company.
In the Minister's speech he said that the battle for market share resulted in an undesirable lowering of standards and led to a situation where reductions in fares were the only means of attracting additional passengers, leading in turn to greater losses. Clearly such a situation could not continue indefinitely. Inevitably fares had to rise to cover costs if the services were to continue. There are people who claim that the rate per mile on the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead route is too high in comparison with rates for similar journeys in Europe. If so, we should aim to have competitive rates. When I say competitive rates I mean competitive in contrast to similar journeys to other countries. We have no competition. This is the danger signal as far as the present arrangement is concerned. I would like the Minister to analyse a little more what he means by "to cover costs." How much of the increase will cover costs? I think it is 12½ per cent. How much is a make-up for what the Minister states have been losses due to uneconomic cost-cutting in the past?
In conclusion, I support the Bill with the exception of the section which I intend to oppose, and I have indicated to the House that I will oppose and divide the House on it. I hope the company will become commercially viable, that it will make a profit in the not too distant future. I do not know whether or not 1986 is included. I do not think it is. I do not know whether the delphic statement "by 31 December 1986" means that we are supposed to have a profit in 1986. I hope the company will insist upon high standards of sales and services on board with a strong eye on Irish interest. I hope there will be an attempt to give courteous service and that there will be an attempt made to condition the people working in B & I to providing whatever service the customer wants. There should be an emphasis on that in the future. People who have referred the new arrangements to the competition area in the EC should be listened to. In financial terms we do not want elaborately structured arrangements to be struck out by the European Commission because of competition. With the exception of the section, and that is a very serious exception, we will support the voting of the moneys for the B & I.
