Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 1990

Vol. 397 No. 1

B & I Line Bill, 1990: Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Subsection (1) shall only have effect provided that the Company will not be sold, or otherwise disposed of, without the prior consent of Dáil Éireann.".

This amendment proposes the insertion of a new subsection in the Bill. In my Second Stage contribution I highlighted the strategic importance of this State asset. I also pointed out that Fine Gael have no objections in principle to the sale of State assets and will judge each proposed transaction on its merits. Because of the strategic importance of this company to this island economy no attempt should be made to dispose of it without the prior consent of Dáil Éireann.

Deputy Rabbitte said that my contribution appeared to be somewhat more ambiguous than that of Deputy Moynihan. It was not in the slightest bit ambiguous. I spelled out clearly the approach of Fine Gael which is that we have no objections in principle to the sale of State assets or the privatisation of State companies and that we shall judge each transaction on its merits. What I am trying to ensure with this amendment is that because of the strategic importance of this company it will not be disposed of without the prior consent of Dáil Éireann. This is the perfectly logical and reasonable approach to take.

Reference was also made to the fact that I referred to some outrageous trade union practices. I also pointed out that these were not approved of by the main trade union movement and that it was only a fringe group who engaged in very poor practices but I wish to take this opportunity to say that I strongly support the attitude adopted by the current management and unions who have been successful in turning around the company and who have entered into a two year agreement. I wish to put that on the record lest the comments I made are taken out of context.

I have tabled this amendment not only because of the exceptional importance of this asset to an island economy but also because I am concerned about what happened in the case of Tara Mines where contractual arrangements were entered into on behalf of the Minister of the day and the company who purchased that State company for $50 million which prohibited the Minister making public the details of the agreement and which in the opinion of the Attorney General precluded the Minister in making known the details of the agreement to Members of this House. That is a very undesirable practice. It is unacceptable that very valuable State assets can be sold off without anyone being held accountable to this House. I ask the House if this is a desirable practice. It is not and not only is it an undemocratic practice it is one fraught with dangers as far as the State is concerned. I do not want to make any allegations as to what could happen but Members can use their imaginations.

I am not only referring to the possible sale of B & I but to the sale of any State asset. This must be seen to be done at arms length and above all someone must be held accountable to Parliament as required by the Constitution when such assets are disposed of. Therefore I have two reasons for putting down this amendment. In relation to the disposal of any State company, be it through the offer of shares or some other form, some one should be held accountable to Parliament and contractual arrangements should not be entered into between the person buying the asset and the Minister which would leave open the possibility of the Minister being sued for breach of contract if he divulges to this House the details of that agreement. This practice is totally unacceptable and fraught with danger and it must be eliminated in any future sale of any State asset such as Irish Life but specifically in the sale of this important company.

I ask the House to support this amendment to ensure that the company will not be sold or disposed of without the prior consent of Dáil Éireann. This point is self explanatory. I made it in my contribution on Second Stage and I do so again now. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Moynihan

I have no problem in supporting this amendment as it is my belief and that of my party that no semi-State body or State service should be disposed of without the prior consent of this House. This is relevant at this time when there is so much talk about the sale of State bodies to private enterprise. This amendment would make sure that before the assets of B & I are disposed of the elected representatives in this House who were unanimous in giving a £6 million injection would have an opportunity to express their views on any such proposals.

Mr. Allen

I too, have no problem in supporting the amendment. I seriously object to the secrecy surrounding the Irish Life deal at present which I hope will not be repeated in the case of B & I. As the Minister said, £70 million of taxpayer's money has been invested in this company. Therefore, the proposal to privatise the company must be made known to this House. In relation to Irish Steel, where the workforce and the public have been left in a limbo, discussions are going on with a number of parties behind closed doors. This is reprehensible. Any proposal to sell off State assets must be made public and made known to the Members of this House.

I wish to respond to what the Minister said in his reply on Second Stage as it is still very relevant. If the press, and thank God we have a free press, were not able to highlight the views of public representatives and if the Dáil was not able to highlight the views of the public we would be in a very sorry state. I would say quite firmly that it was only through public pressure that the Minister changed his mind. What I tried to do was to contrast what is being done here today with the trauma being experienced in the Cork region. The Minister should be courageous enough to acknowledge this. At the outset of any negotiations between the Government and private enterprise the Government should make known to the Dáil the details of those discussions. We cannot sell off the family silver to balance the books and make the foreign debt more acceptable, we must get the full facts. Therefore I support the amendment.

Mr. Rabbitte

In many ways it is a sad reflection on everybody that we have reached the stage when an amendment like this is necessary. In my view the amendment is needed because there is concern on the part of many Members that some of our leading State companies may be privatised, in whole or in part, without the matter being debated in the House. It is extraordinary that we should find it necessary to table an amendment to the effect that before privatisation takes place the matter should be debated in the House. I presume that the Minister in the course of his reply will tell us that that is his intention should the need arise. I sincerely hope that the need will not arise and that any such move will be debated in the House. It is unthinkable that a company whose shares are vested in the Minister for Finance — they are the property of the people — should propose major changes in their ownership structure without that move being approved by the House.

My party will support the amendment. I welcome the opportunity to underline the strong opposition from this side of the House to the Minister proceeding down the privatisation road with the B & I. I do not wish to repeat the arguments advanced on Second Stage but in the strategic interests of the country as an island nation it would be wrong, in the interest of any minimalist impact on our debt repayments schedule internationally, to hive off the only State shipping line we have. The Minister should put a brake on that before it goes that far. Members referred to the investment by taxpayers in the company and there is little point in repeating the arguments put forward. The investment has been made and the only positive thing we can see at this stage is that there is an optimistic forecast for the future of the B & I.

In introducing the Bill the Minister told us that while scheduled repayments totalling £5.2 million will require to be met by the B & I in 1990 it was worth mentioning that the company planned by 1995 to discharge almost all of their currently outstanding capital obligations. Since the company put their five year plan in operation they have exceeded their targets and there is no reason to believe that that will not continue to be the case. The new competitive environment in which they are operating has been in place for some time and the company's position is improving. I agree with the remarks by the Minister about the management of the company and the allegiance they have with the workforce. I should like to avail of this opportunity to plead with the Minister not to go down the road of the people, through the Parliament, ultimately losing control of the only State shipping company that is left in the arsenal of an island nation.

Mr. G. Reynolds

I should like to support Deputy Mitchell's amendment. The Minister told us, in response to the Second Stage speeches, that we should keep our heads steady in deciding the future of B & I. It is difficult to do that when one reads that secret negotiations are taking place between the Minister and the Irish Continental Group.

Mr. S. Brennan

There are no negotiations.

Mr. G. Reynolds

According to this morning's newspapers those negotiations are taking place.

Mr. S. Brennan

That is a matter between the Deputy and the newspapers.

Mr. G. Reynolds

It is between the Minister and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley.

Mr. S. Brennan

There are no negotiations going on.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Has the Minister surrendered?

Mr. G. Reynolds

It is difficult to remain steady when one takes into consideration that £70 million of taxpayers money is involved. It is essential, if the Minister decides to sell the B & I to private enterprise, that the matter be discussed in the House. The chairman of the company, in the course of the review of operations of the company in 1988, states that B & I continue to seek more equitable operating slots and charges at Holyhead from Sealink and I should like to ask the Minister to inform the House if the company have made any headway in that regard. The practice seems to be very restrictive.

Mr. Byrne

Those of us who read the budget speech of the Minister for Finance are well prepared for what seems to be the inevitable, according to certain sections of the Government, particularly the Progressive Democrats wing, that we are heading down the road of privatisation of many of our State assets and companies. I find that difficult to understand if the Minister is genuine in his expressed concern for the company and the workers. Can we take it that there is a real battle taking place at Cabinet level? If such a battle is taking place I wonder who is winning it. The workers of B & I need to be reassured about the negotiations that are taking place. What battles are taking place at the Cabinet table? Is the Progressive Democratic philosophy suffocating what has been the Fianna Fáil pragmatic approach to State companies? Are they winning out?

According to today's issue of The Irish Times the Progressive Democrats wing of the Coalition, in the guise of Deputy O'Malley, is clearly intent on winning out. Presumably what appears in that newspaper today is an indication of what is taking place at the Cabinet table. It appears that the Progressive Democrats are putting pressure on Fianna Fáil to dispose of, as quickly as possible, State involvement in the B & I. The Minister told us of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made by all concerned to save B & I. We should not under estimate the efforts of the workforce in B & I. In a unique move in Irish industrial relations the workforce took a 5 per cent reduction in salary in order to save their company. It would be unprincipled and unforgivable if, in the light of that decision, the agreement to drop almost 500 jobs and the acceptance of a wage freeze as the workers' contribution to the survival of the company, that the Government took a decision to privatise it.

The Minister has accepted that following the publication of the five year programme to rebuild the company in 1988 there has been good industrial relations there. I can guarantee the Minister that if, after we have agreed to grant the £6 million, it will be the Government's strategy to put in another £6 million to soften up the privatisation process and make the company a more plump and attractive proposition for competitors of B & I——

Mr. S. Brennan

Would the Deputy prefer if we did not give the company the £6 million?

Mr. Byrne

Will the Minister be honest and say if the money is being invested in the company to make it a more plump proposition for competitors of the B & I? The workers are aware of what has happened since the Coalition took office. They have read the contradictory statements by members of Fianna Fáil and their Coalition partners, the Progressive Democrats. They are aware that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad has suggested that aircraft should fly over Shannon and land at Knock Airport and that that has been questioned by the Taoiseach. I am not surprised that the workers of B & I are asking the Minister to outline the real purpose for the injection of £6 million. The Workers' Party do not have any problem in supporting the Fine Gael amendment.

I should like to highlight yet again the strategic importance for the State of having a shipping line. I congratulate B & I on their tremendous performance over the last couple of years in so far as they achieved operating profits in 1988 of £1.8 million and of £2.8 million in 1989. This gives the lie completely to the alarmist scare headlines which one regularly reads in the national media that everything in which the State is involved is a dead duck, is costly to the taxpayer and is not profit making. If the five year development programme can be allowed continue, there would be a very valuable asset in the hands of the State at the end of the process. Lest we all ignore the fact that, although we are putting taxpayers' money into the company, through the taxation system, it is also true to say that the Government apply a tax to people leaving the country. It would not be unreasonable to argue that all we are doing in the case of B & I is transferring some of this huge sum of money back to a company that is in need of assistance.

We cannot ignore the figures that are represented, where it is envisaged that B & I will take 310,000 tourists and 70,000 cars in the coming year. That fact alone, that level of business on the sea routes, is of tremendous importance and we should give it full recognition. Not everybody wishes to fly, there is great competition among the airlines and there is also competition on the seas so we have got to be there with a vibrant company, such as B & I are likely to become, if given full political support.

I conclude by suggesting after today's events and particularly The Irish Times report of what Deputy O'Malley had to say that the morale of the workforce, which is a crucial element in the building of the company as a viable concern, will not be enhanced by the clear divisions which appear to exist in Fianna Fáil at Cabinet level. We will be supporting the Fine Gael amendment.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

In supporting the amendment Fine Gael have indicated that they have no stand in principle against privatisation as such. This is a reasonable amendment because it is a safeguard not alone for B & I but for any other State firm who might be under the threat of privatisation. I am sure that other parties in the House would support that stand also because ultimately we are talking about taxpayers' money. While there will be no hesitation in supporting the expenditure of £6 million there would be grave reservations in relation to any hiving off of this State asset to private interests, having regard to the sacrifice that workers and management have made over a number of years to get the company back into profitability. It is necessary and urgent that a brake be put on Government, regardless of who may be in power. That safeguard should be there to ensure that workers' interests are protected by this House. I trust that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Recent events have proven that in the case of Irish Life and other semi-State companies the whole picture can change dramatically overnight. We have had the saga of Irish Shipping in the past number of years which bears no credit to anyone in this House. Unfortunately they are no longer there and I would hate to see a situation arise whereby B & I would go the same road despite the sacrifices that have been made and despite the amount of money that has been put into the company. I would ask the Minister to look carefully at this. This Coalition Government will not always be in power. We should legislate to ensure that ultimately this House would decide on whether a semi-State company should be sold off to private interests. We must not leave it to ministerial regulation. Let us be honest about it, coming from the city of Cork as I do, I would have no great love for B & I knowing that they have reneged on the city in its darkest hour. Even though I admit the £6 million should be put into B & I I would also like to say that taxpayers deserve an equal playing field when it comes to national shipping and semi-State bodies. I will have no hesitation in supporting the amendment, whatever about the principle involved I think it is a reasonable one. There will probably be other times when that principle will come to the fore. Having read the papers this morning I have no doubt that that will be in the very near future. On behalf of the Labour Party I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I would like to speak very briefly on this section of the Bill and the amendment thereto. The move is welcome. The state of the company has improved considerably from the crises of the last decade. The Minister was correct in saying that what accounts largely for the net loss position is the historic debt. I am disappointed that this Bill does not provide for some writing off of that debt because the psychological benefits of the company getting into a profit-making position should not be lightly discarded. When I was Minister for Transport I tried to persuade the Department of Finance to adopt a formula that would isolate the historic debt which would then be written off by the Exchequer over a number of years so as to give the operating company a balance sheet that was viable and to allow them achieve profitability with all the attendant benefits of that for the management and the workforce. My only regret about the present Bill is that it does not go that far. The Department of Transport and I were very much in favour of such a move at the time but the Department of Finance would not buy it.

I do not want to fall into the trap of attacking the Department of Finance — they are often blamed incorrectly — but I feel that in respect of semi-State companies they have been frequently shortsighted in the provisions they make. Sometimes the provisions made are so restrictive as to be self-defeating, nonetheless, the measure proposed is a welcome one. It is great to see such an improvement in the affairs of B & I. A loss of £1.5 million for last year after taking into account the servicing of the historic debt is a very big advance compared with the state of the company seven, eight or nine years ago. After all the air competition that has been introduced it is a very significant achievement and the management and the workforce ought to be congratulated. I suppose the Minister, as the incumbent of the day, also deserves to get a certain amount of credit. I am sure he will modestly accept the accolade. It is good to see such an improvement in the affairs of the company, I hope the next time we have a B & I Bill before us it will be a proposal to make some arrangement for isolating the enormous debt. Indeed, it is a proposal and a formula that might well be applied to one or two other semi-State companies which are being crucified by historic debt which, if it were lifted, could transform the performance and outlook for those companies.

When I was Minister for Transport I persuaded the Department of Finance and the Government, after a very tough battle, to devise a new form of financing for Córas Iompair Éireann and that has worked very well. The level of subvention to that company has gradually declined over the past six or seven years having escalated for almost two decades before that. The same new reflective thinking in relation to the financing of B & I and perhaps Bord na Móna, is now called for to give the State sector a chance to prove itself because, in the new environment that now exists in the State sector, it has every chance of improving itself.

Mr. S. Brennan

I would like to clear up something. I may have inadvertently misled Deputy Rabbitte. I did not actually meet the board of the company as I said earlier. I did have a formal meeting with the Chairman, the Chief Executive and senior management on 14 December which was probably more practical at the time. Just to make sure the record of the House is correct, I wanted to correct that impression. As far as I was concerned, however, that was the correct level of consultation at that time.

Obviously Deputy Mitchell has to make his own decisions, but I have to ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment. I cannot accept it for a number of reasons. Unfortunately for the B & I this debate is taking place against the background of a lot of privatisation talk in the papers about the Government's proposals in regard to Irish Life and other articles that have arisen out of that. It is purely coincidental that I am here this morning looking for £6 million from Dáil Éireann to continue with the company's plan.

Mr. Byrne

Will the Minister ask the Cabinet to censor Minister O'Malley?

Mr. S. Brennan

I think it is a pity that we are getting into the slipstream of the headlines that have been going on in the past few days and this is affecting this discussion today on the future of a very solid company.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is the Minister for Industry and Commerce, not Deputy Mitchell, who is causing the headlines.

Mr. S. Brennan

We are not discussing the privatisation or the State ownership of B & I. What we are discussing this morning is whether the House wishes to take further State-owned shares in this company, and from what I hear my colleagues say this morning, that is what they wish to do.

I have to oppose this amendment for technical reasons. I want to differentiate technical reasons from the privatisation and ownership debate because I see them as entirely separate things. First, I think the amendment is superfluous. There is no question that if such a major step were taken it would require full consultation with and a contribution by Dáil Éireann at the correct time. Second, the wording of Deputy Gay Mitchell's amendment starts with the word "subsection"; that should read "section". That is a small technical reason I am having difficulty with. The third reason I have difficulty with it, is that the wording is "shall only have effect providing that the company will not be sold", when in fact it is seeking to amend a section which deals with 106 million ordinary shares, replacing that phrase "100 million ordinary shares". For the Deputy's amendment to be effective he would have to alter that completely and talk about the disposal of shares in the company.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The amendment is in order and was drafted by the Bills Office. It would not be before the House if it was not in order. He should stop the waffling and tell us if he will accept what the House is asking him to do.

Acting Chairman

I am not going to tolerate any more interruptions. The Deputies will have an opportunity to question the Minister.

Mr. S. Brennan

I am giving the House five good reasons——

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister is introducing red herrings.

Mr. S. Brennan

Does the Deputy not want to hear the reasons?

Mr. G. Mitchell

This was drafted by the Bills Office.

Mr. S. Brennan

Had the Deputy nothing to do with it?

Mr. G. Mitchell

It was drafted by the Bills Office. It was inserted by the Bills Office. This amendment would not be before the House if it were not in order. The Minister knows that. He should stop waffling and tell the House whether he accepts the intention.

Mr. S. Brennan

I understand the Bills Office gives advice in these matters. I did not realise that it drafts Opposition amendments for them.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Deputies put in amendments and they are assisted, just as the Minister is assisted by the draftsman when he puts his amendments before the House, and I presume the Minister does not object to that. This is a democracy. He should stop waffling and tell the House whether he accepts the amendment.

Acting Chairman

A question has been put to the Minister. The Minister is replying to that question. If the Deputy wishes to question the Minister again he is entitled to do so. There will be no further interruptions.

Mr. S. Brennan

I am telling the Deputy that regardless of the advice he has, this amendment is technically not a sensible one from the Government's point of view. It may be in order, but it is not technically correct. I have initial legal advice from the Attorney General's Office. I want to stress that it is initial advice because I only got this amendment about two hours ago. I want to stress carefully that that advice is not definitive. It is received rather quickly because the amendment had to be dealt with in that way, but initial legal advice indicates that this amendment is ambiguous and technically defective.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I would be happy to postpone it until Report Stage if the Minister wishes.

Mr. S. Brennan

If the company can wait for their money.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Do it this afternoon or tonight.

Mr. S. Brennan

It is a very simple thing with which the Bills Office, if they could speak here, would agree. The Deputy has the word "subsection" in the first word in the amendment.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I did not put that in; the Bills Office did that.

Mr. S. Brennan

Then the Deputy should admit that they are wrong.

Mr. G. Mitchell

It should be easy to change that.

Mr. S. Brennan

We have the first point out of the way. That word is incorrect. The second point is that it says "company" and it should say "shares". Obviously if I sold 51 per cent of it the Deputy would still object, and the words "company" and "shares" are not totally interchangeable in this regard. The third point is that the Deputy should be aware of section 4 of the 1965 Act, and the 1971 Act says that the Minister for Finance may hold, for so long as he thinks fit, the shares of the company acquired by him under this Act and after consultation with the Minister may, as and when he thinks fit, sell or otherwise dispose of all or any of such shares. The Deputy's amendment, should, of course, if he wishes to change that situation, amend section 4 of the 1965 Act. It does not mention section 4 of the 1965 Act and in my opinion does not meet his requirement. It would perhaps need to amend the 1971 Act, and it does not do that either.

Those reasons are enough, not to accept this amendment. There is, however, a much more important reason I cannot accept it, and I address this to The Workers' Party representatives because it may frustrate what we have to do here today. If one looks carefully at the wording of this amendment and the section it proposes to amend, one will see there is a tiny difficulty here because the amendment says that subsection (1), which should be section 1, shall only have effect provided something happens. We want section 1 to have effect today. If it is passed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann we want section 1 to go into effect immediately so that the State can pay out £6 million to B & I. Again I am speaking very tentatively because I do not have the benefit of the full advice of the Attorney General in the short time available to me, but it seems that the timing difference in the wording of that amendment could make it difficult to implement section 1 of the Bill under the present wording of the amendment. That could mean I would have difficulty arranging payment of the money. I want to be very clear about this. I am not a lawyer. I have not had an opportunity to get the advice of the Attorney General and in the absence of that advice I could not accept an amendment that seems to have a major timing difficulty.

Mr. Rabbitte

It could be overcome by the Minister giving an undertaking to the House that it would not so happen without the prior approval of the House.

Mr. S. Brennan

There are five good technical reasons why I cannot accept this amendment. The initial legal advice I received is that it is not clear whether the legislation would be necessary if that day were to come about. Section 54 of the 1965 Act, which the Deputy does not seek to amend, says quite clearly that the Minister may "sell or otherwise dispose of any or all such shares..." It does not bring the Dáil into it at that point. It is not clear whether legislation is necessary but I want to put it formally on the record that I believe it would be most appropriate and very wise for this Minister or any Minister to fully consult and seek the advice of Dáil Éireann in regard to the future of B & I. If that day arrives — I have no intentions in that regard as of now; I am looking at all the options — I want to assure the House that it would be my intention to consult Dáil Éireann about the future of B & I.

I have to refuse the Deputy's amendment for technical reasons and not because of the content of it. I want to be very clear on the content of the amendment. As I have said before, I am ruling out no options. The option we will proceed with will guarantee the future of the company, staff and management.

Mr. G. Mitchell

If this amendment was not in order it would not be before the House. The Minister first said that he had got the Attorney General's viewpoint and then said he had not.

Mr. S. Brennan

I got his initial viewpoint.

Mr. G. Mitchell

It is the intention of the Minister to muddy the waters, and try to waffle his way through this amendment so that the House will somehow be embarrassed into not supporting it. It means nothing to me whether the Minister thinks it would be most wise and appropriate for the Dáil to be consulted. That is also the view of Deputy Gay Mitchell, but if I happen to be the Minister of the day I do not know what view the Cabinet of the day will take. I am asking that the view of the House be incorporated in legislation——

Mr. S. Brennan

It could be counterproductive.

Mr. G. Mitchell

——so that the Minister will be required to come back here to get the approval of the House before the sale of this asset takes place. In the early part of his contribution the Minister said that such a major move would require him to come before the Dáil but there is no requirement in the legislation for him to come before the Dáil to approve the sale of this asset. He did not come before the Dáil with Tara Mines, he has not come before the Dáil with Irish Life and he has no intention of coming before the Dáil with B & I.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Deputy's amendment——

Acting Chairman

Order, please.

Mr. G. Mitchell

This is the first piece of legislation, in the area of privatisation, we have had an opportunity to amend.

Mr. S. Brennan

Then do it properly.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The amendment was prepared by the staff of the House and it is a slight on them for the Minister to have introduced them in this political way.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Deputy introduced them.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The amendment would not be before the House if it was not in order. If the Minister wants to bring the Attorney General's viewpoint before the House I propose that we postpone taking Report Stage until later this evening, if necessary, in order for him to put that opinion before the House and to allow the proper amendment to be put down if there is any difficulty.

The Minister should stop being smarmy and smart and should stop this general nonsense. It is right that this House should be accounted to and be told about and have to approve of the sale of a State asset. Not only was Tara Mines sold without the approval of this House but the Minister of the day entered into a contractual arrangement which prohibited anybody, including Dáil Éireann and any committee of Dáil Éireann, other than the Minister and the person signing the contract from having knowledge of what went on in the signing of that contract. That is undemocratic and runs counter to the Constitution which requires the Government to answer to this House. That is what is being done. I want to prevent this being done in this case and in general. I want to prevent it being done because of the strategic importance of B & I. Because we are an island economy it is important to put down this marker in regard to this very important asset which operates on the Irish Sea. I will be pressing my amendment.

I want to refer to the company as against the shares. How dare the Minister give this House a lecture on company law. I am not necessarily talking about the sale of shares. I used the words "or otherwise disposed of" in my amendment because there are more ways of disposing of a company than selling its shares. A company could be put on the shelf and its assets sold very easily. Has the Minister ever heard of asset stripping?

Mr. S. Brennan

The assets are owned by the shareholders.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I am saying that any attempt to dispose of this company should be brought before this House. With regard to the issue of time, the Minister said that this shall only come into effect provided the company will not be sold and that this "could" make it difficult. He did not say that this "will" or "would" make it difficult. It is very clear that the House is saying, let the Bill go ahead on the basis that if there is any attempt to privatise the company or dispose of its assets the Minister will have to get the prior consent of Dáil Éireann. The Minister has not laid any Attorney General's opinion before the House. He used words such as "could", "should" and "may". My amendment, which was drawn up with the assistance of the Bills Office, is in order and I intend pressing it. If it is the Minister's intention that the House should have the opportunity of approving the sale of the asset I am prepared, on an undertaking by him to introduce an amendment on Report Stage, to postpone taking Report Stage until later this evening so that he can draft such an amendment. The Minister has no intention of letting this House know that his real intention is to sell B & I. A bidder is already seeking to buy it, and when an offer is made he will sell B & I in the same way the Government sold Tara Mines, and Irish Life and this House will not be accounted to. It is very sad that a member of the Government who is constitutionally bound to answer to this House has that attitude. I will be pressing my amendment.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Deputy is spreading the argument all over the place. I am trying to give £6 million to B & I and the Deputy is trying to pin me to an amendment which provides that I shall not give £6 million to B & I today unless I give all sorts of chapters, verses and legislative assurances as to the future option of the company. I want the company to hear what is being said and to read in the Official Report what is being said by Members on the other side of the House.

The Deputy is saying that unless the Government tell him today that they will spell out their future ownership options for the company the Government cannot give them £6 million today. The company require this money now and we should give them this money now. If there is to be another day out on the options for B & I we can discuss such options when we come back to the House at that time. The Deputy must be clear on what he is saying in his amendment. The Deputy is saying that we cannot give £6 million to B & I today——

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister has gone from "could" to "will".

Mr. S. Brennan

——unless the Government point out the long-term strategic ownership options for the company. It is not appropriate to do that today because I have told the House I am looking at all the options; I will discuss them with it, and it is my intention to consult with it under the existing legislation to which I am bound.

The company need this money today. If the Deputy is not prepared to support section 1 unless his amendment is attached to it, then he is saying we cannot give them this £6 million until he knows the future ownership of the company. That is not fair to B & I.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I want to make it clear that the Minister cannot give anybody £6 million. The Minister and the Government have no money at their disposal; it is Dáil Éireann who give the £6 million.

Mr. S. Brennan

That is why I am here.

Mr. G. Mitchell

For far too long it has been the attitude of the Government and Ministers to say it is their £6 million. They will not have this £6 million if this House does not decide to give it to them. It is Dáil Éireann which has the authority to give this £6 million. Let us be clear on this.

Mr. S. Brennan

That is why I am here.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I will ask my party to support the Government's bid for £6 million without any difficulty what-soever——

Mr. S. Brennan

Then do it.

Mr. G. Mitchell

——provided that if they try to sell or otherwise dispose of the company they will come back here and seek the approval of this House——

Mr. S. Brennan

That is a different issue.

Mr. G. Mitchell

——which is now being asked to give them the £6 million. This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. The Minister should also be very clear that this is a matter of democracy and accountability.

Mr. S. Brennan

It is a different issue.

Mr. G. Mitchell

This is the only opportunity we will have to deal with the issue. If the Minister will give a solemn undertaking to the House that there will be no sale of these shares without a Dáil debate I will even consider withdrawing the amendment, but I will not have waffle.

Mr. S. Brennan

Give them the money.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I am asking for accountability.

Mr. S. Brennan

Give them the money.

Mr. G. Mitchell

If the Minister is going to sell B & I he should come into this House and account for it. That is what the amendment is about and that is why I am pressing it. It is not the Minister's money. Dáil Éireann is providing the money and the Minister should not lose sight of that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On Committee Stage everybody gets an opportunity. I might remind the Deputies that, thanks to technology it is not necessary for them to raise their voices. They will be heard.

Mr. Rabbitte

Surely this impasse can be resolved by the Minister giving the House an undertaking that there will be no dilution of the Minister's shareholding in B & I without it coming before this House first.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think Deputy Mitchell is anxious that the question be put.

Mr. S. Brennan

I have to follow existing legislation and procedures. Within those parameters it is my intention to consult Dáil Éireann where I am required to do so under the Constitution, under the 1965 Act and various other pieces of legislation. If I am advised by the Attorney General that I am required to come to the Dáil at any time for any matter I will come here.

I am here today because advice from the Attorney General's Office is that to inject this extra money, we need legislation. If there are any developments in relation to the ownership of the company I will take the Attorney General's advice on it. We are not talking today about that and negotiations on the future ownership of the company are not going on at this point. I am talking to the company about their own future and I am listening carefully to them. Neither I nor the Government intend to avoid consulting Dáil Éireann under the legislation as it is. In fairness, if the Deputy wishes to change the situation we must amend the relevant legislation, which is section 4 of the British and Irish Steam Packet Company Limited (Acquisition) Act, 1965.

The timing difficulties involved here could make things difficult. The Deputy is trying to get me to be definitive but I cannot because I have not had the benefit of full legal advice in the matter. I am not prepared to include something on a different issue entirely when all I want to do today is to get Dáil approval to inject money into the company. That is a clean single issue which I am putting to the Dáil and I am asking the Dáil to support that issue so that I can get on with the job and get the cheques to the company. If we have to look at options in relation to the future ownership of the company, we can do that on another day. It is unfair of the Deputy to hold up the £6 million pending on agreement as to the long term future of the company. The company need the money now and I would like to give it to them now.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister is grossly misrepresenting the case when he says that I am unfair. It is simple for this House to provide £6 million and to have a caveat added that in future any attempt to dispose of the company would require the approval of the House——

Mr. S. Brennan

You are linking the two.

Mr. G. Mitchell

——in advance. That is a perfectly reasonable democratic amendment to put before the House today.

Mr. S. Brennan

No.

Mr. G. Mitchell

This is the only opportunity I have to make the point. If any Opposition Deputy rises on the Order of Business to ask a question about the sale of B & I, when it is sold, we will be told by the Taoiseach that it is not on the agenda and that we should put down a question, and when we put down a question we will be lucky if it is reached, and even then we will be confined in the questions we may ask, because we will be told this is not provided for in the legislation. This is our only opportunity to amend the legislation. Nods or winks or anything else do not get into the legislation. I am pressing this amendment and I would ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept it.

Mr. S. Brennan

I cannot. The Deputy is linking giving the £6 million to some future event, and technically I cannot accept the amendment. The Deputy is saying that unless I give guarantees about something in the future, he will not give us £6 million today. I cannot accept that.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 63.

Tá

• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Enda.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, Jim.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and McGrath; Níl, Deputies Clohessy and V. Brady.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand it is the desire of the House to complete the remainder of this Bill.

Section 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and passed.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.

Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.