On a point of order——
Private Members' Business. - B & I Line Bill, 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann believing:
(1) that the proposed sale of the B & I Line to Irish Continental Group is not in the interests of the company, the employees, or the tourism and transport needs of the country,
(2) that the Government should have accepted the proposed management/worker buy-out,
(3) that the failure to make provision for the retention of any public share in the company means that the Government will not be in any position to influence crucial decisions which may have a major impact on transport and tourism,
declines to give a second reading to the Bill."
—Deputy Byrne.
On a point of order, my understanding, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
Before the Government Whip leaves, there is important business here, too.
I will hear Deputy Flanagan on a point of order.
There is less than two hours left to debate the Second Stage of the B & I Line Bill and, having regard to the fact that the Minister will be replying at 10.40 p.m., may I ask the agreement of the House to the remaining speakers restricting their comments on the Bill to 15 minutes? My party have 55 Deputies, all of whom are extremely interested in participating in this debate but, sadly, that is not possible because of the Government guillotine. We have had two speakers on this Bill so far and we are unlikely to gain another speaking slot between now and the close of business. In the interests of some type of order, in the interests of some semblance of democracy being put on the proceedings, I ask for agreement that the remaining speakers confine their remarks to 15 minutes. I understand there is agreement on all the Opposition side of the House but not on the Government side who, of course, introduced the guillotine in the first place.
I wish to support Deputy Flanagan's request and urge the Government, and the Government Chief Whip to accede to it.
The House appreciates that it has been the tradition and the capacity of the Whips to order their business outside and present a fait accompli here which has been accepted in respect of what we are discussing today——
It has not been accepted by this side of the House.
The House has accepted the order governing the debate on the B & I Line Bill, 1991. That is a fact and that is the order of the House. Deputy McCartan, please resume your seat.
Yes, I will, in my own time.
If the Deputy wishes to delay the proceedings further that is his business.
I was in the process of sitting down without the Chair's intervention.
We hear much talk about reforming the Dáil and reforming parliamentary procedures. We must accept that the basis for that must start with the acceptance of an order of the House and the position of the Chair in respect of carrying out that order.
Save where a filibuster is employed, which is what has happened in the House.
On a point of order, I want to see if we can reach a consensus because it is important that we do so. Virtually all the business which comes before the House has the agreement of the parties in the House, but there is no agreement on this side on this matter. Am I in order, therefore, in proposing, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, that any contributions to the Bill from now on should be confined to 15 minutes?
The Deputy would not be in order in so proposing. The only proposition that the Chair could accept now——
We are seeking consensus.
——would be one representing the agreed and unanimous view of the House.
That is what we are seeking now.
Is it in order to ask that Deputy Roche not be inflicted on us?
Only if the Deputy is not inflicted on us.
If Deputy Flanagan asks a question, he must be patient enough to await the answer. The only circumstances in which the Chair can change an order of the House is by unanimous agreement of the House. If that is not forthcoming it cannot be changed and I suggest that we get on with the business.
Will you put the question to see if there is agreement?
It cannot be put.
Would you seek to establish whether the unanimous voice you seek exists in the House?
Deputy Howlin, you are an experienced Member of this House and you know that propositions and motions cannot be put in that fashion. As I have indicated——
Agreement can be sought.
If the Whips have not sought it in the appropriate way, and given that the Deputy is indicating that it is not available, what is the point in looking for what is not available?
Ask for it.
It is not the function of the Chair to ask anybody.
Now that the Government Whip is present in the House, may I ask Deputy Ahern if agreement could be reached on this one simple proposal that we limit the concluding speeches to 15 or 20 minutes per speaker?
We are not going to create unsatisfactory precedents and I would suggest that we proceed with the business as ordered and that the Whips should get together now and return. If they reach agreement the matter can be solved but I am not going to depart from the procedure of this House and create a precedent. That would be a departure and I am not entitled to do so. I suggest, now that the Whips know the mood of half the House, they get together and come back. If there is an agreement, obviously the Chair will accept what has been agreed.
We take your advice.
On a point of order, in seconding Deputy Flanagan's motion may I have your agreement——
Deputy Flanagan has no motion. There is no motion
——in an effort to allow us to proceed with the business of the House and to save time——
Deputy Owen, there is no motion and I ask you to allow us to proceed with the business so that we can save what time remains. Deputy Durkan.
Can I have your agreement that we will have more latitude on Committee Stage? Many of us want to speak on Second Stage but we are not going to be given time to do so.
The Chair will carry out its duties in accordance with Standing Orders and will not make any promises in respect of relaxing anything which is not in accordance with the rules of the House.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the people in the B & I will not thank you for allowing this debate to proceed and to be guillotined. This is scandalous.
(Interruptions.)
I call on the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to contribute to the debate now. Is he going to allow those Members on this side of the House who want to make a contribution to do so?
Deputy Durkan, you were in possession. I have called on you to address the House and have suggested that the Whips should get together outside the House and report back to us.
Is that agreed?
That is agreed.
(Interruptions.)
You broke every promise you made to them.
Deputy Roche has recovered; he is back in form.
I will take my hour on his matter.
The Deputy will be subject to the order of the House just like everybody else.
The prospect of the Deputy taking an hour is more than we should be asked to bear.
I would like to continue from where I left off before Private Members' time. At that stage, I mentioned that sea links are of vital importance to an island nation which is cut off from the mainland of Europe and which depends almost totally, from the point of view of travel and business, on sea transport services.
In circumstances where we heard concern expressed about the importance of this legislation one would imagine that we would give better audience to the Deputy in possession. I would ask all those who are not directly involved ——
They are your crowd.
——to remain quiet while Deputy Durkan endeavours to make this case.
We are concerned about the manner in which this sale was brought before the House. It was obviously done in a great hurry. Those of us who have been watching the proceedings here during the past few weeks will readily recognise that the legislative programme was suddenly changed about a week ago. We were led to believe that the reason for this change was that we had to have a discussion on European union and so on. It appeared however that something had happened or was about to happen which led to this legislation being brought forward at this time. There are one or two points that I would like to make.
If one is to be successful in buying out a company one needs the goodwill of the staff. I put it to the Minister that this goodwill will not be forthcoming because of the manner in which both he and his Department have gone about, hurriedly, unceremoniously, selling the company in the week before Christmas in the knowledge that this would be a source of concern to the staff and Members of this House and that uncertainty would be created in the marketplace. Given its vital role, the Minister should have taken some considerable time to consider the implications of a decision to transfer ownership of this major company to another group bearing in mind the processes that have to be gone through in the ordinary course of events. Having regard to the fact that this company would face stiff competition the Minister should have ensured the necessary structures would be in place so that the measures being taken would last for many a long day.
In this instance, a relatively small company are taking over another company of similar size. I am exaggerating slightly but in any buy-out situation, one would not expect a company to take over another company of even half its size as that would be a big undertaking and involve a big financial commitment, while many difficulties could rise in the future. I note Members on the opposite side of the House are shaking their heads and that is not at all unusual but I should say that the sale has been handled in a very amateurish way.
I presume the Minister was asked quite a number of questions and that he asked a number of questions to which I hope he received the answers. If this sale goes through, will problems be encountered and questions be asked at a later stage, for example, in relation to any liabilities hanging over the company at present? What is the position in relation to any outstanding liabilities or claims against the B & I? Who will have to carry the can and accept responsibility for these — the Minister, the Government or the taxpayer? Will the company, which will be either strengthened or weakened as a result of this buy-out have to accept responsibility? I should like the Minister to answer these questions tonight because it may have implications later on and it would be an advantage to Members of the House, when the time comes to vote, if we had that information. I emphasise the importance of that question which I hope the Minister will answer because it could have serious consequences, depending on how it is answered.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is the Minister's failure to exercise the golden share option available to him and which should be an obvious choice. This provision was put in place for a purpose, to ensure that the Minister would have some control over what is likely to happen in future. For example, the new company could be taken over by somebody else; the Minister and the House may have no control over it; maybe in the not too distant future we could have serious difficulties and we might have to go back over the ground which the Government covered in the sixties when the B & I were bought.
Another point which has caused concern on this side of the House, and of which the Minister has been made aware by Opposition Members, is the pension fund. There has already been a reference in the House to security and guarantees so far as pension funds are concerned. It was said that when this Bill is enacted there should be no threat to the contributors. However, that is not the case because, despite the best efforts of the Minister and the person charged with responsibility for overseeing and supervising pension funds, it is virtually impossible to monitor the activities of all the companies to ensure that the rights of the contributors are guaranteed. That was confirmed to me in this House by the Minister for Social Welfare a few weeks ago in a reply to a parliamentary question. Furthermore, the difficulties in relation to the security of pension funds in other countries not far away, especially one which has arisen in the past couple of weeks, should further underline our concern at any transfer from one company to another of pension funds, which appears to be the case in this sale.
A substantial pension fund is obviously an added attraction to the buyer. In any situation there should always be considerable discussion, investigation and analysis of the company buying but particularly when taking over a company with a relatively healthy pension fund. I know that quite a number of other speakers wish to contribute to the debate but I have another few questions to ask the Minister.
With the exception of air transport, sea transport is the only method by which people here can travel abroad or by which foreigners can visit this country. Deputy Dennehy referred to the importance of the various corridors and of course he was speaking with a certain bias towards his native county, which is understandable. However, Members who represent midlands constituencies also have a slight bias; while there are very few harbours in Kildare, with the exception of the canal harbours, I assure the House that quite a number of business people need ready access to ports and shipping routes which are efficient, have a fast roll-on roll-off service and so on. With that in mind, Dublin port about a year ago brought a number of public representatives from my constituency to a meeting to point out the importance of those routes. It is no harm to reflect on the fact that although midland constituencies are not maritime counties they still have a vested interest in an efficient shipping service.
I understand that the Minister met the board of the B & I yesterday morning and that a number of questions were put to him, which I hope he answered. If he did not I hope he will answer them in the House tonight because Final Gael are very concerned to know whether the Minister was given all the necessary information and guarantees. Has he covered and investigated all the options available to him? For instance, did the Minister consider the options, apart from the immediate sale, which would give a better return to the Exchequer? That was referred to by a number of speakers in the House yesterday evening and tonight. The Minister knows these options and the work done by the staff-management committee who are interested in a particular proposal and who have done considerable work in that regard. They gave the Minister information which was very beneficial to him and to anyone thinking of buying a company, with particular reference to the B & I. I listened with interest to the Minister's speech yesterday but I did not hear confirmation in this regard. Did the Minister go through the process of looking for the various competitive bids that might have been available to him? Did he make relevant inquiries? Where were those inquiries made? Were the staff and management of the existing company aware of the inquiries and from where bids were being sought? How many companies or interested parties from outside were aware of the Minister's anxiety to obtain information in relation to such bids?
Has the disappointment at the manner in which this sale has been brought forward at an unusual speed been conveyed to the Minister? Did he provide for discussions through the board and their independent committee which could have contributed to the process leading to decisions? In other words, did the Minister use the facilities available to him and to B & I to investigate and evaluate all the options, with particular reference to the need to ensure that the staff of the company being sold were aware of what was happening, that he had their confidence and that they had his? Is the Minister aware of the widespread disappointment and anger at every level throughout the board, staff and management at the manner in which the decision was made and announced? Is the Minister fully aware of the hurt and frustration of the existing board and management at the way he rushed this Bill through the House to sell their company, having regard to the work which the members of the board and the staff in general put into the various proposals which were laid before the Minister over the last few weeks?
Did the Minister consider all the implications of bringing the matter into the House in this fashion?
Did he seek assurances or was he given any assurances or guarantees that there was adequate protection against the reintroduction to B & I by the new owners of practices unacceptable to the unions? I understand that the implications were conveyed to the Minister. There is a possibility of difficulties in that area. The Minister should give careful consideration to this and should reply to these questions as a matter of urgency tonight. Did the Minister give any assurances in respect of the protection of the rights of individual staff members and of staff participation opportunities? Was the Minister aware of the willingness of the existing staff to participate in the event of a buy-out? Is he prepared to allow similar participation as regards the proposal before the House? Has he been given any assurances about the involvement of existing staff in the new company and the protection of their rights? Are there any proposals in relation to the long term prospects for the existing staff of B & I?
We believe that the Minister did not receive any assurances in this regard. That is an indication that the legislation was brought before the House in an unrealistic and hurried way, and rushed legislation is never good legislation. I have just heard that agreement has been reached between the Whips and, that being the case, I will bring my contribution to a close as soon as possible. However, I wish to make one or two brief points before I conclude. I would again ask the Minister to reply in detail to the questions asked. I asked whether he was given any assurances or whether assurances have been sought in respect of the existing staff and whether the Irish Continental Group have given an indication of their willingness to accept the suggestions made by the Minister or through him by the existing staff of B & I.
I would like to know why this legislation is being rushed through the House. Why could the Minister not have waited until further investigations had taken place? Why, in a matter of such magnitude, did the Minister not wait until after Christmas to introduce the legislation when more time would have been available to debate it and it would not have to be rushed through the House?
I would like to know whether anybody raised with the Minister the question of holding an annual general meeting. When was the last annual general meeting of B & I held or when should such a meeting be held? Should it have taken place recently or should it have taken place on 25 July? Is a meeting due now or is it overdue? Are there implications in relation to the Companies Act, 1963, due to a failure to hold an annual general meeting within a specific period of time? All these questions need to be answered. I would like to have dealt with other issues but due to the number of speakers who wish to contribute to this important legislation I will conclude. I would ask the Minister to please address in detail the various points raised because the replies to those questions are eagerly awaited, especially by this side of the House.
The Chair appreciates Deputy Durkan's "John the Baptistry" in respect of what happened at the Whips meeting. However, the Chair has received no intimation as to what has happened and a change can occur only when the Government Whip moves the motion in respect of whatever arrangements have been made.
In an effort to show some goodwill in this House — I hope it will be reciprocated in future — we have come to an agreement on the basis that the speaking time for each speaker shall be curtailed to 20 minutes, with the Minister to conclude at 10.40 p.m. as previously agreed.
The motion is that there will be 20 minutes per slot.
As I was not represented at the Whips' meeting could the Chair indicate, in view of the announcement when he will call me? I will require only five minutes or so, and there are no other Independent Deputies offering. I think it is reasonable that I be granted at least five minutes.
It is reasonable and the Chair has always striven as far as possible to accommodate one Independent Deputy on every Second Stage debate.
I support that request and I am sure the Government will oblige the Deputy.
Will the Deputy share some of his time?
There are five minutes left——
That is Government time.
I hope that there will be five minutes available to the Deputy before the Minister is called.
In contributing to the Bill I will endeavour not to strain the goodwill of the House. If the House agrees I will share my time with my constituency colleague, Deputy Gregory. We may or may not be on the same wave length regarding B & I but our constituents should have the benefits of our thoughts on this matter.
I am sure the Deputy's magnanimity is appreciated.
The B & I headquarters are in my constituency of Dublin Central and I am delighted that many of the staff of that company as well as of the Irish Continental Group are constituents of mine, although none of them holds a managerial or an officer position.
The nub of this matter is that the Minister's proposed Bill on the B & I is the only acceptable proposal put forward. Discussions have taken place throughout today and yesterday on Ireland's need for native owned and native crewed shipping lines. Great play has been made of access corridors to the EC. Deputies spoke about the southern corridor, the central corridor and so on. At present the Government cannot get money for floating assets. I hope that as a result of the Maastricht Summit and with a review of Structural Funds, the Irish Government will get support for floating assets such as ferryboats, ships and so on. Access to France and England is essential. Unfortunately, the road and rail routes from Holyhead to London are not of a sufficiently high standard that we would benefit fully from them. I hope that the British Government will press for Structural Funds to develop these routes.
A former Secretary of the Department of Transport and Power, the late Dr. Theckla Beere, had a major say in buying B & I in 1965 on the Government's instructions. She was a lady of outstanding ability but, to my knowledge, she does not feature prominently in the feminist canon but perhaps in later years this will be redressed. She was an outstanding lady in the history of the Civil Service and of transport and management.
The problems facing the Minister were many and varied but, in the end, they boiled down to money and providing a good transport service to Ireland. Since the Government took over the B & I in 1965, £106 million of taxpayer's money has been injected into the company. When one considers that a new ferry costs in the region of £60 million one can see the scale of the problems facing the owners of the company.
That will not be a problem; the debt will be gone at that stage.
The Chair put up with a certain amount of corncraking interruptions from the Deputy last night but I am not going to take it tonight. If the Deputy is not happy, will he please leave. There should be no interruptions, especially with the time constraints on the speakers.
I wish to point out to Deputy Byrne——
I would prefer if the Deputy did not reply to Deputy Byrne.
If the Government are taking over debts of £30 million and a new ferry costs in the region of £60 million, one can see the scale of the problems facing any company taking over the B & I Line, whether the company are run by ICG, by a staff management consortium or even by the trade unions. The problems will not go away.
The major problem I had with the staff-management buy-out offer was the proposed use of the company's pension fund for severance payments and working capital. That money would come from the future pensions of people who are not endowed with many worldly goods. In my area, the wives of the workers and the workers, were very anxious about this fund. I have had representations made to me about the use of the pension fund. One cannot play lotto with someone else's money. Going into the shipping business, no matter how one looks at it, is a gamble. It is a cyclical business; there are good years, and bad years. The B & I have experienced mainly bad years since the early fifties. On the other hand, the Irish Continental Group have managed to turn their company around and have gone from a nett debt of £19 million in 1983 to a nett cash surplus of £9.5 million in 1991. This Irish owned company appear to have the ability to manage. We should support them and wish them luck in their buy-out of B & I. Having read through the offers that were made, their offer was the best and we should accept it.
I take the opportunity to wish the staff, the future staff and management of B & I the best of luck; they are going to need it. There will be a great deal of hard work involved.
May I take the opportunity to thank my good colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick, for allowing me a few minutes of his time, although I have to say I am not on the same side as he anticipated in his earlier remarks.
I want to put on record my absolute opposition to the sell-off of B & I Line to ICG. I am opposed both to the principle of privatisation of the B & I company and also to the unseemly haste with which the decision was taken and the equally unseemly haste with which the Bill is being rushed through the House tonight.
The Minister and the Government have shown little more than contempt for the aspirations of workers and management of B & I. They do not deserve this contempt. Many of the workers are constituents of mine and, as a result of the Government's action, they now face a most uncertain future. There will be at least 250 compulsory redundancies as part and parcel of the Minister's deal with ICG. This effect of privatisation demonstrates yet again that it is the small group of greedy profiteers who benefit most and the decent hard-working employees suffer most. For the workers and their families this is a most unjust decision and one can easily understand their sense of outrage.
The most striking aspect of the whole affair is undoubtedly the unseemly haste with which it was pushed through, so much so that the modified staff-management buy-out proposal was given little more than a cursory glance by the Minister. A few hours after the modified proposal was presented to him he rejected it. No reasonable or worthwhile consideration could have been given to the proposal in the short time. It seems to me that workers and management were used as a pawn in the Minister's game. What is most surprising about this is the fact that the same staff and management were responsible for transforming B & I from a loss making concern with an operating loss of £3.5 million in 1987 to a profit of £2.5 million this year and a projected profit of £4 million for 1992. That transformation was the result of a five year rescue plan involving a major reduction in the workforce; a three year pay freeze and a pay cut of 5 per cent. The workers, by their commitment, dedication and self-sacrifice, achieved this remarkable success which should, in all fairness, have paved the way for staff and management taking control of the company. Having saved the company it was then hi-jacked by the Minister and handed over to those who have no commitment or motivation to anything other than self advancement, profit and corporate greed. That certainly must be a terrible travesty of justice. Little wonder that the workers, management and the boards are expressing their anger and resentment at the very harsh treatment they have received.
It is no coincidence that the sell off is being rushed through at this time in view of the very likely event that increased moneys from the Structural Fund will be ear-marked for shipping transport following the Maastricht agreement. In this context the ICG's investment of £8 million in a company estimated to be worth more than £20 million must be seen as easy pickings for the profiteers. There was, of course, no satisfactory answer to explain the rejection of the staff-management buy-out proposal. The withdrawal of the Danish company was used as an excuse to question the viability of their plan, yet it was conveniently forgotten that AIB Corporate Finance were prepared to back their bid without the Danish involvement. Clearly, the Minister never intended to take the staff-managmement buy-out bid seriously.
The Government are not noted for their concern and solidarity with workers anywhere. I am confident that the workers will remember this when the approaching general election takes place.
I have one final question to ask, and it is a question I put particularly to the trade unions. Where does the deal leave the commitments given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress? What about the commitment that any changes in the ownership structure of State companies would take place only if it was in the public interest and in the best interests of the company and its employees and following consultations with the social partners? What consultation has there been with the social partners? In particular, what consultation has there been with the trade union movement? The lesson, at least as far as workers are concerned, must be that the Government cannot be trusted and their commitments are worthless.
I will finish by paying tribute to the workers, management and trade union representatives of B & I, who struggled so hard for something that I believe was their right.
With your permission, Sir, and that of the House, I should like to share my time with Deputy Rabbitte.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
At the outset I wish to record the Labour Party's opposition to the proposed sale and privatisation of B & I. I believe that the workers of B & I have been sold down the river by the Government under this Bill. On Thursday afternoon when I listened to the Minister speaking at Question Time I heard that it had been decided to sell off B & I to Irish Continental Group. At that stage I stated that I felt that the Minister had effectively stuck a knife into the back of the management and staff of the company. Having listened very attentively to the Minister's contribution yesterday and having read through the contribution on several occasions, I am more convinced than ever that the staff/management buy-out proposed was never — as a constituen colleague of mine has said several times — on a level playing pitch and that the proposal, originally initiated by the Minister himself, or, indeed, by his Department, was in the main for the purpose of putting additional pressure on Irish Continental Group and thus increasing their offer. Surely there is a message in that when one considers that the current bid shows an increase of £2 million in a number of months. I know that many of the public are taking that message on board.
The failure of the Minister to go down the road of the MSBO will prove to be a monumental national disaster. The Minister had a unique opportunity to try something different, an opportunity that was particularly valuable when one considers the economic climate with nearly 300,000 people unemployed. The Minister had unique opportunity to try something new, something that promised an alternative to redundancy.
The buy-out proposal would have brought together the expertise and skills of an experienced and committed workforce that had secured the support of AIB Corporate Finance. I know that earlier the Minister shook his head when the same comment was made, but when the Minister responds I should like him to speak in detail about the commitment of AIB, on the withdrawal of the Danish consortium, to go ahead and give full financial support to that venture. Was that not a major vote of confidence in the proposal by a financial institution, particularly given the natural aversion of financial institutions to risk taking? Is it not a pity that the Minister did not have the same confidence in the workforce and their proposal, given the expertise of the personnel in B & I and what they have done in recent years?
In the past three years of the plan B & I changed a deficit position into a £2.4 million profit. The number of passengers carried increased from 839,000 to well over one million in that three year period. I could go on in detail about the achievements of the staff and management of B & I in bringing about the improvement.
The Minister has stated that the only way to establish the best value for any company is to seek competitive bids. However, when comparing the two bids for the company — £8.5 million versus £5 million — the Minister should have taken into consideration the total net benefit to the Exchequer. If that were done then deductions should have been made from the ICG bid to take account of at least 100 additional redundancies. In 1993 the knock-on effect of redundancy would result in £900,000 in lost income tax and PRSI contributions plus additional social welfare contributions. In 1994 and following years £600,000 per annum would go on social welfare payments and entitlements to other State benefits. Therefore, the apparent £3 million difference between the two bids would disappear after five years. The Minister might put forward the view that the additional 100 workers made redundant would not necessarily remain on the dole. As a Dublin TD and in the light of a live register of nearly 300,000 and the present lack of employment opportunities in Dublin, he would be a foolish man to make such a claim.
The present Coalition Government and the previous Fianna Fáil Government have tended to take on board the Thatcherite philosophies of the British Government in the areas of health and social welfare and, indeed, right across the board. I do not lightly give Margaret Thatcher praise, but is the Minister not aware that even she approved the decision of the management and staff to purchase the National Freight Corporation in the United Kingdom several years ago? I understand that at that time the corporation were in difficult financial circumstances. It should be further noted that the staff of that corporation have had a significant return on their investment since they purchased the corporation several years ago. In fact, that decision and the success of the organisation was an inspiration to the staff and management of B & I in coming to their decision — a decision that was in line with the supposed philosophy of Fianna Fáil throughout the years of involving people and workers and giving them opportunities in the State sector.
I was involved directly in a take-over of a semi-State organisation by private concern. In CIE I negotiated for the very successful Spa Road section of coach building works, which was hived off to the private sector because it was successful. I have seen the workers there. That is why I contend we must safeguard workers' interests. Prior to that hiving off to which I have referred there were various commitments on paper in regard to continuity of employment, conditions of service but, when things changed and it was privatised, very different circumstances obtained.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy must address his remarks through the Chair rather than to the Minister.
In the course of his introductory remarks the Minister said:
I want to acknowledge and publicly thank the board, the management and all the staff of the company for their efforts in making the plan of action work.
Since 1987 the company was turned around from having had an operating loss of £3.5 million to a profit this year of £2.5 million. Over that period staff numbers have been reduced by some 400 and, since 1990, a staff reduction of a total of 1,500 has been secured. It should be noted that existing staff have accepted substantial modifications in their terms and conditions of employment, accepting a 5 per cent pay cut in 1988 and foregoing several pay rounds as part of their contribution towards securing the future of the company.
The Minister will agree that that amounts to real sacrifice but what have they been given in return? In the light of those sacrifices and the achievements of the company were they not entitled to a formal hearing, a fair opportunity, to be afforded every opportunity to ensure that this enlightened proposal could take off?
In his earlier contribution the Minister stated that he was not satisfied that the MSBO consortium had the full support of the workforce of the B & I. I would disagree with that, as I am sure would the staff. I should state very clearly that a general meeting held with the staff on the day before the Minister took the decision, 4 December, the ordinary grassroot members of the Seamen's Union of Ireland who were present were in full support of the buy-out proposals. Irrespective of what the Minister has been hearing the feedback clearly is that there was general support for that proposal.
I take issue with the Minister when he said he was given the impression that industrial relations within B & I are unsatisfactory. That is not the case at present although it may have been some years ago, as major improvements in industrial relations practices have taken place in recent years. Indeed I would ask the Minister to ensure that such would be the case under any new ownership.
I might now refer to the pensions scheme. Recent events in the United Kingdom in regard to the pension funds of the Daily Mirror group, alleged to have been pilfered by the late Robert Maxwell, places even greater onus on the Minister to introduce safeguards in the Bill to secure the accumulated pension fund of the B & I staff. I understand that negotiations have taken place but that representatives of the proposed new owners have not given any commitment to the present staff of the B & I in regard to future proposals, about which many questions have been asked. For example, what would be the position of new employees or of new employers in the pension fund, the funding of early retirement benefits, the position with regard to trustees and actuaries? These matters will have to be clarified in employees' interests. If there is to be any change in the usage of the pension fund the membership of the B & I should be given an opportunity of expressing their wishes to a general meeting of members, any decisions being taken by 75 per cent of membership.
This Government were afforded a unique opportunity of providing something new and worthwhile for these people who have given of their skills, talents, knowledge and experience over the years and the Minister has failed them. I believe it will lead to a doomsday position. I hope I am proved wrong. I hope the staff will make a success of the venture in the interests of their jobs. With regard to industrial relations within the company I would ask the Minister to take on board what has been said here, particularly by the Opposition, including amendments we have proposed to ensure that we will have a viable company whose staff will be prepared to continue to render the company successful.
I thank Deputy Ryan and regret very much that I have only five minutes because I am the one Member of the House who has considerable affection for this company based on my past involvement with it. I should like to have had more time to have spelled out in more detail why I believe the Minister has done a sweetheart deal with ICG. Regrettably I am confined to posing questions to the Minister he has not yet answered.
I should like to ask him why he did not ensure that there was a proper competition? Why did he exclude the board from the entire process? Why was there a full-scale confrontation yesterday morning between himself and the board? Why did he prevent the annual general meeting taking place this year? Why did he veto the Chairman's report for 1990? Why has he ratified a proposal involving zero return for the Exchequer when another course of action has been recommended by the board that would involve an estimated return to the Exchequer of in excess of £20 million?
Having decided to sell the B & I why did the Minister sit on his hands for about nine months and then give the MSBO proposals a clear impractical deadline of two weeks? Why did he twice extend that deadline in a fashion contrived to hinder rather than help finalisation of the proposal? Why did he veto an inspection of the company's affairs by the visiting interested Danish representatives, he having invited their interest in late September? Why did he then, on 29 October, give the consortium in which the Danes were partners until only 5 p.m. on Friday, 8 November, that is "eight working days" to make their offer? Why did he try to railroad the board of B & I yesterday morning, December 10, into signing over the share purchase agreement in advance of the legislation going through this House and in advance of the details of the agreement with ICG being known?
Why, having earlier praised the turnaround in the company's fortunes, has he latterly effectively rubbished the company at every opportunity? Why did his office seek to stop the issuing of a letter from the chairman of the company on 9 December to all staff? Why did he not correct the record of this House of 3 December, — column 1953 — when the Taoiseach told me that the Bill would not be taken in this session when he, the Minister, knew it was already with the printer and would be published the next morning? Why did he feel it necessary to seek but ignore the advice of Mr. John Cooke, Senior Counsel, on his manner of handling the sale? Why has the Minister refused to protect the pension fund surplus and permitted circumstances to prevail in which legal advice has warned the unions that they are exposed to the risk of ICG simply winding up the three funds and having made the transfer to the ICG fund, walking away if they were so minded with a surplus of up to £12 million? I have in my possession a copy of that advice. I hope to have the opportunity to place it on the record of the House and ask the Minister to explain it.
I wanted to put on the record of the House also, had I the time, the last chairman's report to the annual general meeting if it had not been countermanded. I wanted to avail of his opportunity also to put on public record the points presented to the Minister by the board yesterday morning which provoked a full-scale confrontation with him because of the extent of the board's displeasure at his handling of the sale.
The points put to the Minister yesterday morning by the board included:
1. Conveying to the Minister their concern that he did not consider options other than immediate sale which would give a better return to the Exchequer.
2. That there was not an effective process of competitive bids.
3. Conveying to the Minister their disappointment that he did not provide a forum in which the board — through its independent committee — could contribute to the process leading to decisions.
4. Conveying to the Minister the widespread sense of disappointment and anger felt at every level throughout board, staff and management at the manner in which the decision was made and announced.
5. Seeking assurances that there is adequate protection against unacceptable union practices being reintroduced into B & I under new owners.
6. Seeking assurances in respect of the protection of the rights of individual staff members in respect of staff participation opportunities.
7. Conveying concern that public indications that the plan had failed have not been corrected.
8. Ascertaining from the Minister the terms of the proposed sale to ICG and the timing of proposed completion.
9. Ascertaining from the Minister an early date for their AGM and the publication of their 1990 accounts.
In the limited time available, that is the best I can do to put succinctly to the Minister the major questions surrounding his decision to do a sweetheart deal with this company.
I would particularly have liked the opportunity to put on the record of the House the advice of his civil servants to the Minister which has been provided to me and which includes the advice from John Cooke. This advice states inter alia that the purpose of the changes being recommended to the Government is “to remove any appearance of acquiesence in a claim by ICG which they would presumably like to reserve as a fall back position that there is an existing agreement to sell to them”. The Minister should deal with these points when replying. This raises a shadow over the manner in which this deal has been handled. Why the headlong rush to sell to ICG only and to pull the rug from under the management and workers who have struggled successfully to turn this company around in the face of adversity, changing market conditions, air fare deregulations and so on? I greatly regret that I do not have adequate time to expand further.
Deputy Rabbitte is not the only person who has an affinity for B & I and matters relating to shipping. A long time ago as a very junior civil servant I had the pleasure of working with both B & I and Irish Shipping. I come from a background of shipping and if I make some comments about the relationship between this matter and what happened in the case of Irish Shipping, people will understand my anger.
There has been a great deal of spurious and hypocritical nonsense spoken in this House in the past two days.
Now we are to hear more of it.
If the Deputy wishes to interrupt me, I will take my time and deliver my speech.
Acting Chairman
No more interruptions, please. Deputy Roche, I will protect you.
I take it very ill from a member of the Labour Party, one of the parties that butchered Irish Shipping, the last of our shipping companies to disappear from State ownership.
Scandalous nonsense.
What is scandalous nonsense? They got rid of Irish Shipping.
Acting Chairman
The last three speakers were not interrupted and Deputy Roche should be allowed to speak without further interruption.
That will be an historical day.
It is very difficult.
The truth injures those people. They butchered Irish Shipping and threw the workers out on the street without any shred of consideration. Now they put forward hypocritical arguments.
Deputy Roche's party promised the world and delivered nothing.
I particularly aim that at our friends in the Labour Party.
Deputy Yates, opening the debate for Fine Gael, said his party were opposing the Bill on the grounds that the sale of B & I represented very bad value whereby the taxpayer gets the worst of all worlds. What stunning hypocrisy. We recently passed another anniversary, that of the dismemberment and destruction of Irish Shipping. Let us consider the cost of that débacle to the Exchequer in the past decade. In so doing we can illustrate that at least on this occasion some thought is being given to handling the issue of a shipping company who have been in difficulties.
The Irish Shipping guarantees cost this nation £38.5 million. The Spruce lease cost £12.9 million. The care and maintenance of the Spruce under a foreign crew in Marseilles when Labour and Fine Gael refused to allow Irish Shipping Limited personnel to man the ship cost £2.8 million. The total direct cost associated in the immediate aftermath of that débacle was £54 million. The sale of the Spruce yielded £3.6 million, leaving a net direct cost of £50.6 million. I make the point for Deputy Howlin who does not seem to see the parallels, as well as Deputies from Opposition parties who were then in Government, that the Irish Shipping workers, and their management, begged to be allowed to retain at least the Spruce. Deputy Rabbitte recognises the truth of that.
The Deputy's party welched on commitments to them since.
If the Spruce had been held for as little as 12 months if would have yielded on sale an additional £15 million. That would have been more than sufficient to give the workers what they rightly deserved and still deserve.
Why not give it to them?
It is impertinent and dishonest for any Labour Party Deputy, or any member of Fine Gael, to talk of value in the sale of any shipping line after what they did in the case of Irish Shipping Limited.
The Deputy's Government have been in office for four years.
What value was there in the way they handled Irish Shipping? Deputy Yates also expressed concern for the staff of B & I. Where was the conscience of Fine Gael when the officers, the crew, the shore staff, the office personnel and the management of Irish Shipping Limited were being thrown on the street? Where was the conscience of the Labour Party who are supposed to be concerned about the workers? How dare Deputy Yates, Deputy Howlin or any other apologist for those in Government at that time come into this House and speak on such lines.
We have made no apologies.
At least Deputy Ryan has the honesty to admit that what his party did in Government cannot be explained away. It is worth reminding ourselves that Irish Shipping Limited was an inherently profitable company and that tragically the same cannot be said of the B & I. For reasons which were not always within their own control, and some which cannot in all honesty be said to have been outside their control, B & I have had problems virtually since the day they were taken over by the State. I would argue that one of their greatest problems was that they were taken over by the State.
The arrangements for B & I, while not ideal, at least display some more humanity and common sense than was displayed when the Fine Gael-Labour Government threw Irish Shipping Limited, their staff and their families to the wolves.
On a point of order, may I ask the Deputy to pronounce Fine Gael properly, please?
The Deputy is sensitive to that but was certainly not sensitive when the Irish Shipping Limited workers were thrown out. We see her priorities. It was said on that occasion that the wives and the mothers of Irish Shipping Limited workers suffered most.
We are talking about the present.
Had the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Jim Mitchell, held his nerve, shown a jot of common sense and striven with anything like the energy which this Minister has put into this issue, we would have a fleet by now and would possibly be in a better position.
Deputy Yates and other Fine Gael speakers went on to say that the timing is wrong, although there is apparently nothing wrong with the principle. If we only waited, said Deputy Yates, until 1992 the trading profit of B & I would be better and we would get more. Therein lies the nub of the issue. At least one speaker opposite has adverted to the fact that this company have been burdened with debt and operate in an inherently unstable market. They will always have difficulties unless they can be related to some other shipping company in finding a profitable niche in which to operate. Unfortunately there have been many false dawns for the B & I since they came into existence.
On each and every occasion when it looked as if there would be a turnaround there was some setback or disaster. Sometimes these disasters were of the company's making but more often than not they were not of their making. During the period from 1966 to 1977 things went relatively well for the B & I. The aggregate losses during those 12 years amounted to no more than £207,000 on a total turnover of £154 million. This was very good. However, over the next 12 years things went from bad to worse. Overexpansion in the last seventies resulted in increased financial charges and severe and damaging overstaffing. Substantial fuel price increases during the late seventies and through the eighties affected the operators on long cross-channel routes. The general economic recession cut into the company's earnings. The depression in the tourism market during the time of petrol shortages led to difficult market conditions right up to 1985. Service disruption because of industrial disputes — and I am conscious that Deputy Ryan made the point that there has been a remarkable turnaround in industrial relations in the B & I Line over the past three years——
The Minister did not acknowledge this.
The Deputy would have to admit that up to three years ago the situation in the B & I Line bordered on scandalous on occasion. However, this has not been so in more recent times. The introduction of air fares deregulation caused problems for the B & I Line. Substantial provision for losses associated with extraordinary items and high financial charges throughout that period right up to 1988 caused major catastrophic structural problems for the company. There was always an unequal struggle given the debt burden they had to face.
The history of the B & I during this period — one could go into their history in great detail — illustrates just how slippery the ground is on which Deputy Yates and his party are basing their opposition to the Bill. The reality is that there is never a best time to make a decision in the shipping business. As we all know, the shipping business has gone through a continuous period of decline and increased competition since the second World War. With the introduction of technology the situation has gone from bad to worse. In addition, foreign crewing has meant that cost structures within the shipping industry have not been equal. Therefore, there is little point in putting off the decisions which have to be made in the hope that there is a more fortuitous time just around the corner.
Some Opposition speakers have argued — and there is certainly more sense to this argument than the argument put forward by Deputy Yates — that we should look at the other alternatives so as to ensure that this company remains in Irish hands. One could argue in favour of that. The net profit of the B & I Line during the period to which I am referring peaked in 1978 but has effectively been in decline ever since. I want to deal specifically with the question of valuation which goes to the nub of the arguments put forward by Deputy Yates.
In arguing that we should wait a while before moving to privatise the B & I Line Deputy Yates questioned the price for which the company is to be sold. Other Deputies, sometimes for more logical reasons, also questioned the price. It has been suggested that this is a soft price. By castigating the Minister because the Irish Continental Group have made an offer which he believes is too low, Deputy Yates effectively suggests that the State should go further and effectively sell the asset for the lower price offered by the management and staff. The reality is that two separate prices have been quoted for this company, one is £8.5 million and the other is £5 million. If the original management-staff buy out offer, incorporating the Danish partner, had gone ahead, would the Fine Gael party be suggesting that the assets should be sold——
The Deputy is a slow learner.
——50 per cent to a foreign company, for £3.5 million less? Are they seriously suggesting that?
Deputy Yates's failure to grasp the process of company valuation was well illustrated by his contribution yesterday. He said at a crucial point in his contribution — I pointed this out to him today to give him the benefit of being present to correct it — that the share price for the Irish Continental Group is 12p at present and that it would go up to 24p. Anyone in this House who holds an Irish Continental share would have been startled to hear that, because the price for Irish Continental shares quoted in The Irish Times of today is 110p. So much for his calculations of valuation. The price quoted yesterday for ICG shares by Deputy Yates in his contribution could at best and most charitably be described as rubbish. As I said, the price quoted for these shares today is 110p.
A related and perhaps more germane point is the way we value a shipping company. In the case of the Irish Continental Group the valuation is approximately £18.5 million. That arises because of the ratio of price to the operating cash flow, which is not an uncommon way of calculating the valuation of a shipping company. It is worth carrying out the same exercise on the B & I Line. The Irish Continental Group have a ratio of price to operating cash flow of the order of four. That is a relatively high figure because, contrary to some of the comments made here, ICG have an excellent track record and have had very good industrial relations. Because the ratio is high it would be generous to apply that ratio of four to the B & I Line. However, if it is applied in the case of the B & I Line a very interesting figure emerges.
The current profits of the company stand at approximately £2.5 million. Adding back depreciation we get a figure of £3.4 million. I do not think anyone here would dispute that. That would be the operating cash flow before depreciation. However, we must deduct a standing charge of £1.4 million because of works at Milford Haven. This reduces the figure to £2 million. Applying the multiple of four gives a price valuation of £8 million for the B & I Line. I think everyone here accepts that we could trot out different valuation systems until the cows come home and we probably would not agree on them.
There was no multiple of four in relation to Greencore.
The reality is that that is one valid approach to establishing a valuation for this company. It gives us a figure of £8 million which is very close to the figure quoted in the tender by ICG.
I want to make a final point on valuation. The price quoted for the B & I Line was in response to a tender. The only other price quoted was £3.5 million below that price and was put forward laterally by the management and staff with the support of Allied Irish Investment Banks. As Deputy Ryan said, Allied Irish Investment Banks were taking very little risk because the B & I Line have among other assets the pension fund. That was the reality for the MSBO bid as it is the reality for the ICG bid. I do not think anything further than that can be said about it.
The reality is that at present there are four possible ways of dealing with the problem of B & I: first, to continue the status quo and keep the company within the State regime as at present; second, redevelop it with major capital investment — and if the money were available that is the option I would favour; third, liquidation of the company; and, fourth, sale of the company. The first option is untenable. We cannot allow the company to struggle on as it is. We all accept that there needs to be a change in the B & I Line. The second option, however desirable, is unfortunately not possible. The third option, the concept of liquidation of the company, is totally unacceptable to everyone on all sides of this House. The fourth option, sale, is the only real option.
As I said at the outset, many years ago as a young civil servant in the then Department of Transport and Power I worked on the accounts of this company. That was shortly after the establishment of Irish Ferries as an operating company within the Irish Shipping Group. Like many others I thought at that time that it was a great tragedy the company which became Irish Ferries and the B & I Line were not merged. It would have made sense from day one if the two ferries operated within the State sector under the same management. I felt at that time that it was sensible because there was synergy there. There is, and we all know, an historical administrative load on the B & I. When they came into operation they had a very cumbersome administrative structure. They have done a great deal over the years and have shed a huge number of staff but proportionately there is a very high management level. It makes a great deal of sense to put the two ferries under one roof. It is easy for people here to say this particular solution is not the best one. None of us actually knows whether there is a better solution but at present it is the only solution that presents itself. Rather than raise spurious arguments and rather than raise a series of doubts about the validity of this company——
It is not the only solution; it never was.
I accept the point made. If I had more time I would have dealt in greater detail with issues such as the golden share or putting protections into place for the pension fund. The reality is that this is the only real solution available to us. We cannot sell the assets for £3.5 million less, we would be rightly criticised if we did that. Together we should wish this new Irish owned shipping line all the best and we should hope they will have calmer waters to traverse than the two State shipping lines when they were in the ownership of the nation.
Bon voyage B & I.
I would like, with your permission and that of the House, to share some of my time with Deputy Barnes.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I commence by saying we have had another vintage arrogant submission by Deputy Roche which was full of lectures and telling us all what we should do. He always knows better than everybody else.
At least I knew the price of the shares which the Fine Gael spokesman did not.
If his reason for discussing the Irish Shipping debacle was to remind us of what had happened in order that lessons could be learned I would say to him that clearly he has not decided to take any lesson from what has happened. I would remind him that when the Irish Shipping debate was taking place here — he was not in the House so I suppose I had better give him some benefit for that — it was an extremely painful time for many Deputies from all sides of the House because of what it became necessary to do with Irish Shipping. There were many acrimonious debates here as many of us, from Government parties at that time, too, sought to get the very best deal for the workers of Irish Shipping Limited. I would suggest to Deputy Roche, and perhaps the Minister would benefit from this also, to read the debates of that time, because, whatever the validity of some of the points made by the present Minister for the Marine, Deputy Wilson, who was then in Opposition, they are even more valid now. Deputy Wilson said on 14 November 1984, column 2082 of the Official Report:
The company was conceived and born in dangerous times. No one can say with certainty that at present we do not need a company like Irish Shipping. No one can say that peace is assured or what tomorrow will bring.
He was making a case that we needed a shipping line which was State owned under an Irish flag. He went on to state at column 2086 to say:
Are we going to be left unclothed in the shipping sense, are we going to be on our own and at the mercy of other powers?
Whatever the justification for saying that when B & I was still State owned there certainly is a huge justification for saying it now when we are being asked to preside over the selling off of B & I. I and the Fine Gael party have no ideological hangups about privatising companies but I do not believe in selling off something that is beginning to make a profit, because of the actions of the workers. We are being asked to preside over the consumation of a decision which was taken by the Minister at the beginning of this year. All that has happened in between was an illusory cosmetic exercise to give the Minister an opportunity to show how magnanimous he was in allowing the workers and management of B & I have a say but that he had made up his mind. If we want proof of that during February and March of this year spokespersons from all sides of this House and the management and staff of B & I warned the Minister of the difficulties they saw if he sold off this company to Irish Ferries. He ignored all that or he went through a facade or a cosmetic exercise of seeming to allow them have their say. He even went so far as to say in his contribution:
I want to acknowledge and publicly thank the board, the management and all the staff of the company for their efforts in making the plan of action work.
What he is really saying is: thank you very much management and staff for fattening up the company, for getting it ready to pass on to somebody else. If the Minister really meant what he said he would be acknowledging that the plan of action was at last beginning to take effect. Further in his contribution he highlighted the fact that operating profits of £1.8 million, £2.8 million and £2.3 million were recorded in the last three years of the company. I accept that the Minister was still paying some equity to them. If the Minister is now saying he can, with the stroke of a pen or a wave of his hand, write off the £35 million debt for ICG, who are now going to buy this company, why can he not write it off and take that burden off the management and staff of B & I and allow the growth we are beginning to see in terms of trading surpluses until they become more profitable and become a good asset for this country. There is evidence to suggest that the profitability curve was in the right direction during those three consecutive years.
What did the Minister do just when the company were beginning to make a profit? He decided he had enough and that he would get rid of it. It is like a farmer who decides to buy some bonhams and fatten them for sale. He knows he will have to put in some input by way of feedstuffs in order to receive some benefit from his investment. That is the equity the Minister has been putting in to B & I. The farmer begins to see his bonhams fattening and the time approaches when he will be able to sell them and make a good profit and, perhaps, carry out some improvements on the farm but he gets tired and decides that it is troublesom getting up in the mornings to feed them and so on. Half way through the feeding programme he decides to sell them off but he does so at a lower price than if he kept them for some further time. He then has to sit and watch while the new farmer who has bought the bonhams proceeds to complete the feeding programme and when he has them fattened up sells them at a profit and makes the effort worthwhile.
ICG are on the pig's back.
The Minister will, in a few short years, regret that he will not have control of B & I because I believe that over the next few years ICG will make enormous profits out of this company. They have managed to get from this Government for the sum of £8.5 million a company that is worth more than their own company at a price which, if they were to build a company from scratch, and had to buy the assets, the ships and so on, would cost three times that amount. They are getting a nice sweet prize from the Minister. On top of that, the Minister has given, not only in this House and outside it, but to the British-Irish Parliamentary body which he addressed last week an assurance he has been pressing for EC funds for mobile assets. He has given a clear commitment in that respect. But he got rid of the one company that would have enabled him to reap the benefits of his efforts. Those benefits, should they materialise, will go instead to ICG and I can only say good luck to them in that regard.
Why should the State not get those increased funds to improve the shipping quality and the freight quality B & I? It is utterly incredible that the Minister at this stage can decide that this is the right time to do this. I do not have an ideological hang-up and I agree that in 1965 this company were set up to ensure an adequate level of capacity and to maintain competition in sea transport between Ireland and the UK. I agree that that can be easily done by private enterprise, but if it can be done with more value to the taxpayer, by the State, why throw that opportunity away now?
How many more minutes have I left?
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has 12 minutes left.
Thank you. The Minister will regret this decision. At the British-Irish parliamentary meeting last week one of the expert committes at that meeting set about examining freight transport between this country and the UK. It is clear that with the opening of the channel tunnel far more emphasis will be put on transporting freight to the mainland of the UK through the channel tunnel and that there will be opportunities for increased freight travel across the Irish Sea. That is where profitability will come from a company like this. The Minister admitted that at that meeting. It was estimated that there will be a 10 per cent shift from the long sea crossing to the land bridge which will be created by the channel tunnel. Freight shipping is about to increase between Ireland and the UK because of the channel tunnel and we are getting rid of the last company in which the taxpayers can have some pride and from which we can gain some benefit. At that meeting the Minister spoke about his hopes for increased tourism. I do not say that ICG will cut down on the car and passenger ferries but we do not know the fine print of the deal which the Minister will do with the Irish Continental Group. That is an indictment of the Ministers haste in this deal.
If the Minister had examined the management and workers proposals more carefully he would not find a substantial difference between the two offers. As Deputy Ryan said, the Irish Continental Group proposed to shed approximately 250 people, many of them in middle management, in their middle years, who will not be able to get more work, who will go on to the dole. Even allowing an average payment of £60 a week to 250 people, and many will get more, that is about £7 million to £8 million per year. If the management staff buy-out was agreed they would have shed fewer than 100 jobs, thereby saving £3.12 million on the deal which would bring their offer up to the value of the Irish Continental Group. I cannot understand how the Minister says that the deal being offered by ICG is substantially better for the State. In both offers the Minister was going to write off a £35 million debt and a certain number of jobs and as a result of the ICG offer there was to be a greater number of staff lost.
What did the Minister expect from Stokes Kennedy Crowley Corporate Finance? They are the body the Minister consulted with and asked them to prepare a report on the B & I. They advised the Minister to sell it. The Minister then asked them, like asking a judge to judge himself, to look at the two offers from the ICG and the management and staff. What other result did the Minister expect but to take the offer from the ICG? There would have been more merit in asking some other independent body to look at this. I know——
NCB, perhaps.
——that the Department of Finance were in there but the Minister asked the body that recommended selling, to come back and look at the two offers. I see the Minister grimacing, but what did he expect them to say, except to sustain their own advice from the word go? I will leave it at that because I know Deputy Barnes wants to say something. I do not have an ideological reason for opposing this Bill but this is a foolhardy, unwise and hasty decision by the Minister. The people in B & I will suffer, their families will suffer and as a result the Minister will suffer.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Barnes has just under seven minutes.
On a point of order, I looked at the clock when Deputy Owen started and it was about 10.5 p.m.
It was not.
I understand that there are 20 minutes per speaker. I cannot understand how it has gone to 25 minutes now.
Acting Chairman
I have a very detailed record of the times. Deputy Roche was called at 9.52 p.m. and he finished at 10.12 p.m. The Deputy now has until 10.32 p.m.
He finished before that.
I am glad I was able to share at least one of my minutes with Deputy Lyons, even if it was not productive. Deputy Roche claimed that there would never be a more fortuitous time at which to carry out this transaction. I challenge him on that. Was it a fortuitous time with regard to not just the future profitability of this company but with regard to staff relations, given the acknowledgment accorded to the workers, whom the Minister praised, when the board only learned about the sale when it was reported by RTE at lunch time on Thursday last, when the B & I management and State consortium, MSBO, were still putting together details of their bid and believed they were involved in a productive constructive exercise, while they were just being given the run around? Does the Deputy still believe it is a fortuitous time when observers have expressed since then their absolute surprise that the Minister did not decide to hold on to the company for at least another year, considering its promise and profitability? Given the praise attributed by the Minister and everybody else to the staff and management of B & I, how is it that the board can convey to the Minister their disappointment that the Minister did not provide a forum in which the board, through their independent committee, could contribute to the process leading to decisions? That is the least any company about to be taken over and promised such constructive discussion could have expected. The board conveyed to the Minister the widespread disappointment and anger feltl at every level in B & I at the manner in which the decision was made and announced. If Deputy Roche believes there was not a more fortuitous time for this exercise, he knows nothing about industrial relations, much less any acknowledgment of the work and dignity of the people in a company, but that comes as no surprise to me.
The pension fund has been referred to and we must take this very seriously. Deputy Roche was most understanding with regard to that. There is a surplus in the existing B & I pension fund. What safeguard is there for that pension fund? Will it be used or will some of it be used as a cross-subsidy from B & I to Irish Ferries and the new company? What confidence can people nearing pension age, who have paid into the pension fund, have that they will be looked after? An outstanding question asked by the board was is in regard to an early date for an AGM and the publication of the 1990 accounts. Astonishingly, the Minister, and the Government, did not allow the publication of those accounts.
The Government did not allow the publication of those accounts in contravention of sections of the Companies Act, 1963. At a time of doom and gloom when we all hope for some good news it seems strange that that AGM and the accounts are denied.
Above all else we must ask what legal claims against B & I will be taken and by whom? For instance, we do not yet know the implications of the recent collision between the m.v. Kilkenny and the m.v. Hasselwerder.
Everything about this deal flies in the face of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, of the social contract, of social partnership, of discussion and of the dignity and recognition due to workers and management and staff-management relationships. I find it a fine irony that the Taoiseach should return to this country in triumph because he and ten other countries had held out in Maastricht for a social charter exactly along the lines we are asking for in the treatment of the workers in B & I. If the social charter is adopted we will find ourselves, if Fianna Fáil are still in Government, traipsing to Europe to get the justice that has been denied in this shabby deal.
I am calling Deputy Callely.
I am seeking also to contribute to this debate.
Acting Chairman
As the Deputy knows, in eight minutes I will call the Minister and I am advised that Deputies Callely and Dempsey will share that eight minutes.
I am extremely disappointed at the way the Government are maintaining this guillotine.
Acting Chairman
That does not arise now. The Deputy may discuss it later.
It does, to the extent that I wish to signal my interest in speaking in this debate. I wish to make a point and then I will give way under great protest. We indicated to the Government Whip that we could consent to the Minister winding up for 20 minutes provided there was no other speaker waiting to contribute. I demand the right to be heard in this House on this Bill.
Acting Chairman
I am calling Deputy Callely and he should be allowed speak without interruption.
I have listened with interest to the various contributions to the Bill. Many questions have been posed and I have no doubt that the Minister will respond adequately to them and, possibly, introduce appropriate amendments on Committee Stage.
As a relatively new Member I was surprised to hear the contributions by Members who, when on this side of the House, liquidated Irish Shipping. In that case many questions remain unanswered.
The Deputy is hardly one to talk about liquidating companies. The Deputy's handling of Eurokabin left a lot to be desired.
I am sure the Deputy will withdraw that remark.
I certainly will not.
It is totally out of order.
It is not.
This Bill is before the House because the Minister indicated last year that he was carrying out a detailed examination of future options for B & I and whether the Exchequer could continue to fund B & I to the extent as in previous years. There is an option to carry out that examination or to allow B & I to continue until they were crippled or went into liquidation. The Minister took the option of bringing in professionals and getting their opinion.
And then ignoring them.
We are talking about £106 million being put into B & I since 1965, £53 million of which has been put in since 1985. Stokes Kennedy Crowley indicated in their report that £115 million would be necessary over the coming four years.
If companies like Eurokabin paid their taxes we could afford this.
The report also strongly recommended that B & I should be sold. The Minister took this recommendation on board and exhausted all avenues to ascertain as to who in the marketplace would purchase it.
It is also my understanding that five companies expressed serious interest in the B & I. The best offer was from ICG which was £8.5 million. Some speakers criticised the sale price of £8.5 million. With a £36 million write-off, with assets in excess of £20 in a company heading for good profits — this year £2.5 million — that company will be much stronger and more viable without the debt. It sounds crazy that all this is selling for £8.5 million; it is definitely good value for money.
Why should we not keep it and let the taxpayers and the workers benefit?
The Deputy is totally out of order.
It is the Chair who decides that.
The best acid test to find market value is to put the item on the market and that is what the Minister did. The best offer was from ICG offer.
Many questions on the management-staff buy-out have been posed. B & I played a very important role in terms of employment and so on. I would welcome answers to the many questions on the management-staff buy-out. I have great admiration for the way the staff tackled some of the difficulties that B & I faced over the years. The workforce was reduced from 1,500 to 900, they accepted a pay cut of 5 per cent and a pay freeze to get the company back on the rails.
Fatten it up to sell it.
A number of serious questions relating to the management-staff buy-out should be answered. The first relates to the way they intended raising the capital to purchase the company. They intended interfering with the pension fund. I am seeking clarification about that. At the end of the day, however, the reality is that the best offer is the ICG offer.
Is the Deputy sharing?
I am sharing. It is hypocritical of people to come into this House and paint an incorrect picture. Let us look at the other side of the story. There was only one serious offer for the Minister to consider. He had to ensure there would be a fleet and secure the jobs of some of the employees of B & I. I am sharing my time with Deputy Dempsey.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has two minutes remaining.
Again and again in the debate we heard the claim that this has all been done with undue haste. I do not know how Members opposite can say that when the Minister clearly signalled in March 1990 that he would examine B & I to determine how soon the company's dependence on Exchequer financial support could be ended. From then onwards the board of B & I outlined options, including a merger with other companies.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy must conclude now.
That was the shortest two minutes of my life.
The Deputy was to have two minutes to conclude.
Acting Chairman
The Minister will give the Deputy three minutes.
I will be as brief as possible because I know the Minister has answers to the many points raised.
In accordance with the order of the House the Minister must be called on to reply at 10.40 p.m.
Mr. McCartan rose.
Acting Chairman
I must call on the Minister to reply to the debate.
I wish, once again, to register our protest and to point out that there are other Members in the House who will not be heard in the debate on this important Bill at this stage.
Acting Chairman
That has nothing to do with me; I have called the Minister.
They include me. Does the Deputy want to raise personal matters?
Acting Chairman
Order, please. Allow the Minister to reply to the debate.
I thank all the Deputies who have taken part in the debate. Apart from one short period, I was here and listened attentively and, I would like to think, objectively to it, and I have taken careful note of all the points made.
I hope so.
I should say that throughout the entire debate during the past two days I did not interrupt any speaker even though I was taking some stick. I would, honestly, like to be given 16 or 17 minutes to say what I have to say. If the Deputies feel they cannot do that, I will understand but I would much prefer if they could agree because everyone is entitled to have their say. People can take it or leave it, but interruptions get us nowhere.
The first issue that needs to be addressed is the price. It has been claimed consistently by speakers that the sale represented bad value. A number of speakers said that it was a sweetheart deal, but almost in the same breath they alleged that the management staff buy-out consortium were cynically used by me to force ICG to increase their offer. They cannot have it both ways. This line of argument stands logic on its head. As I said before, any reasonable person would agree that the only way to establish the best value of any company is to seek competitive bids. The chairman of the B & I advised me to do just this in a letter dated 8 October 1991 in which he said:
We agree that, given a decision to sell now at the best price available, fair value is whatever is the best price that can be obtained in the marketplace. We support the view of the consultants that a true competitive bidding process between more than one buyer is likely to produce the best price. True market value will only be obtained where each bidder has confidence that if his bid is the highest it is likely to be accepted.
That is exactly what I have done in the case of the B & I Line. During the past year or so, two trawls of the international shipping market have been carried out. Apart from ICG and the earlier management-staff buy-out offer, which was also unsuccessful, two major international shipping companies looked at B & I. Both decided that they were not interested in making a bid for the company. A further foreign-owned company did make a bid about a year ago. They offered the Government a nominal sum of £1 for the entire issued share capital of B & I on the basis that the Government would assume responsibility for their liabilities which my advisers estimated to be in the range of £29.5 million to £43.5 million. I would prefer not to give the names of the companies involved at this stage for commercial reasons.
These are the hard facts which I am putting before the House. ICG's latest offer of £8.5 million is clearly superior to the management-staff buy-out consortium offer of £5 million, £3 million of which would be deferred. Indeed, the consortium's offer is inferior to even the previous ICG bid of £6.5 million. Let nobody therefore tell me that the sale to Irish Continental Group has not been made on the basis of the best price available in the market. The analysis put forward by Deputy Roche this evening in regard to the stock market valuation bears this out.
If I sold the B & I Line for £3.5 million less than the amount on offer would Deputies in the House not accuse me of squandering taxpayer's money and demand inquiries into why I did not take the best offer? Would they be as interested in the taxpayer's money in those circumstances as they appear to be in other circumstances where millions of pounds are at stake?
Yes, because another institutional investor is available——
Acting Chairman
Deputy Rabbitte, please allow the Minister to conclude.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Deputy Rabbitte, please desist.
In many cases, speakers adopt the attitude that suits them in relation to taxpayer's money. I was also asked to consider selling the company to the MSBO consortium in which there was substantial foreign investment. Several Deputies alleged that the consortium did not have adequate time to prepare a bid.
That is correct.
Acting Chairman
Please, Deputy.
That is not true.
It is true.
I did not interrupt any speaker. I would ask The Workers' Party to give me an opportunity to say what I have to say. I listened very carefully to what each of them had to say. Let me give a few facts to show why.
When SKC spoke to the Danish backers of the consortium on 2 October they clearly stated that they would only require two weeks to make a final bid. The reason no doubt was that they had already been associated with the previous bid made a year earlier and that their partners in the consortium were the company's existing management. In my own view, the existing management of any company should be able to make an informed bid for their company within two weeks.
On 21 October the chief executive of the B & I Line informed me that he could have a firm and final bid with me on behalf of the consortium within three weeks. I agreed to give him five weeks. Therefore those who wanted to make a bid got more time than they sought. Furthermore, the industrial relations officer of the Irish Congress of Trade Union, on behalf of the B & I group of unions, requested a period of one month within which to attempt to prepare a bid with the management consortium. I gave them five weeks. By any standards, that was adequate and well in excess of what they had sought from me. ICG were given the same five week period in which to prepare a revised bid. In many ways they were outsiders.
That is a misrepresentation of the position and the Minister knows this well. He also knows that I know it.
Acting Chairman
Please, Deputy Rabbitte, allow the Minister to conclude.
I would now like to deal with the question of the B & I pension funds. I wrote to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 1 November 1991. I want to read what I said to them into the record of the House. I said:
I wish to assure you that the Government will not accept that any sale transaction be conditional on the company liquidating the assets of B & I pension schemes for any amount. In my view, the control and management of pension funds are the responsibility of the trustees of such funds.
The sale to ICG is fully consistent with this commitment which I repeat this evening. I should remind the House once again that the management/staff buy-out consortiums offer hinged on the use of £6 million from the B & I workers pension funds.
What is wrong with that? The Minister seeks to undermine their offer.
Acting Chairman
Please, Deputy Rabbitte.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, this is entirely misleading.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Rabbitte, resume your seat.
He is trying to raise a point of order.
On a point of order, is it in order——
Acting Chairman
That is not a point of order.
You have not heard it yet.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Rabbitte, please resume your seat.
On a point of order, is it in order for the Minister to mislead the House in terms of the advice available to him——
Acting Chairman
He is not misleading the House.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Deputy Rabbitte, please resume your seat. The Minister should be allowed to conclude.
The Deputy should sit down and let the Minister conclude.
Even when the Deputy stands up I think he is sitting down.
The Deputy claimed that I had pulled the plug on management and staff at a time when they could have reached agreement with the Danish interests within a matter of days. Again, this is simply not true. On 4 December, I received a copy of a letter, sent to my advisers by AIB Corporate Finance Limited, in which it was indicated that the management and staff had withdrawn from the consortium bid and that an amended bid was being submitted on their behalf. This letter stated quite clearly that management and staff were still very attracted to the idea of a partner for B & I. However, they believed that discussions with possible partners, including Irish Ferries, could be postponed for at least 12 months. At that stage they believed they would be able to do a much better deal with a potential partner. This clearly shows that the suggestion that a deal could have been done with the Danish interests within a few short days, weeks or even months was simply not true. I have the letter here which I can read into the record if anyone is interested.
In relation to the question of time, it is over one year since I announced publicly the Government's decision to sell B & I to the Irish Continental Group. I issued a public statement on that occasion in which I indicated that I had reached agreement with the trade union movement. The trade union representatives confirmed that they were prepared to positively co-operate in the sale of the B & I to Irish Ferries provided they were given adequate assurances on key conditions affecting their members.
Which they were not.
There was little or no reaction at that time. I cannot lay my hands on any statements made by a number of the Deputies who spoke here this evening, but I reject the notion that this matter was rushed. This country, everyone in this House and all the parties involved had a year's notice.
What guarantees has the Minister secured?
It was said that AIB Corporate Finance has stepped in to fill the vacuum left by the removal of the Danish interests on the consortium. This, like some of the other statements made earlier, is not true. The bank merely confirmed that they were willing to offer the same day-to-day banking facilities to a management-staff bid as they were previously offering to the consortium bid. They were not offering to replace the Danish investment, just to maintain the usual and similar banking arrangements. The Danes represented some 50 per cent of the funding and, without them, or even without the possibility of their funding within a year, as indicated in the letter which I have here, the management-staff buy-out was greatly weakened, as any objective commentator would conclude.
Various speakers referred to the B & I as being highly profitable. I am surprised at their liberal definition of that word because there is no point in saying that if you ignore the debt, the company are profitable. Any successful company must be able to carry some debt and still be profitable so that they can renew their assets, develop their business and so on.
Deputy Yates said last night that B & I had moved from a loss of £9.4 million in 1984 to a projected profit in 1992 of £4.2 million. He went on to quote various trading figures which are not accurate. I have the correct figures here and I will read them into the record when I have more time. Suffice it to say that, after interest charges, all the so-called operating profits turned into losses.
All my figures were before interest charges.
In the same period, from 1984 to 1990, the Exchequer injected a total of £59 million equity in the B & I. Indeed, as many speakers pointed out, since their acquisition from the private sector in 1965, a total of £106 million of taxpayers' money has gone into the company. At the end of all that, the fleet needs to be renewed. SKC Corporate Finance Limited advised me that, on the basis of figures supplied by B & I, this could cost over £70 million. B & I have been — and continue to be — saved from liquidation by the taxpayer.
Tell the House about the rest of the advice SKC gave.
Despite the £106 million of equity injections there are still debts of £35 million to be removed from the company before they can be sold. They are hardly a profitable company. In spite of what some Deputies said, I wish to express my appreciation to the staff of the B & I who, over many years, put up with a lot of pressure and difficulties.
That is the most cynical remark I have ever heard in this House.
When the dust settles they will see that their future is sounder now than it was at any time. The unions accepted that 12 months ago when I first announced the matter.
What guarantees were given to the workers?
I listened to Deputy McCartan——
The Minister did not listen to me because I did not get a chance to speak.
I listened to Deputy Rabbitte.
If adequate time had been provided I could have spoken.
Acting Chairman
Resume your seat, Deputy McCartan.
I did not like many of the remarks made on the other side of the House but I kept my mouth closed. I am just asking for manners.
Will the Minister tell the House the rest of the SKC advice which should be put on the record of the House?
Acting Chairman
Deputy Rabbitte, resume your seat.
I have also been branded as the Minister who was determined to sell the company to ICG at all costs but that is not so. I wish to remind the House that I appointed an assessment committee.
(Interruptions.)
I wish the Opposition Deputies had manners. I did not interrupt anybody.
It is all part of the argy-bargy in this House.
The assessment committee comprised representatives of my Department, the Department of Finance and SKC Corporate Finance Limited, to examine the two offers. The assessment committee made a unanimous recommendation to me that the sale should be concluded with Irish Continental Group. Are the Deputies opposite saying that the Department of Finance, the senior officials in the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications and SKC would behave other than properly in regard to assessing bids?
I know what they said.
I am coming to that. Indeed, the Deputy will not be pleased with what I will say.
That is certain.
I had a very full and frank exchange of views with the full board of B & I on Tuesday morning and I was given an unequivocal commitment by the chairman and the board that they would co-operate fully with the sale to Irish Continental Group. The chief executive of B & I has also given me a similar commitment on behalf of the management and staff of the company. I have had over seven meetings with the chairman and his senior people in the 12 month period while this has been developing, an unprecedented consultation.
On a point of order, is there no end to the misrepresentation?
Acting Chairman
That is not a point of order. Resume your seat.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister treated Alex Spain disgracefully.
I had seven meetings in 12 months with the chairman of B & I.
Not to talk about this.
No, we talked about The Workers' Party.
The Minister seems to be preoccupied with our party.
I should now like to comment on the question of redundancies. Let me be clear about one thing; there is no question of people being put out of a job before Christmas. The MSBO consortium and ICG indicated that they would assume responsibility for rationalisation after completion of the sale. ICG indicated that they would seek redundancies of about 250 people and they have assured me they will all be voluntary, if possible. Indeed, Irish Continental Group previously advised the union that they would guarantee existing rates of basic pay. I have no doubt that, following completion of the sale, ICG will sit down with the unions and negotiate a reasonable agreement.
What assurances in writing are there for the workers?
The original MSBO consortium——
What guarantees——
The first MSBO proposal involved 300 redundancies, the current number involves 150 to 250 from the management-staff buy-out. The level of consultations with the trade union interests in relation to this sale is possibly unprecedented. To date my Department have had approximately 20 meetings with trade union representatives, including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, as well as numerous bilateral contacts. I met trade union representatives on three occasions.
Waffle, waffle.
Well, there were 20 meetings, the unions were there and the Deputy can call it what he likes. In regard to worker participation, I hope that ICG can work out a sensible arrangement with the workers in the joint company.
I want to refer to what Deputy Rabbitte said in regard to the document on which he laid his hands and which was on its way from the office of the Chief State Solicitor to me. The document which the Deputy waved around yesterday is simply advice to me after the Government took the decision to sell the B & I. It was advice about implementing the decision; I did not ignore the advice. It was purely legal and technical advice about how to implement the Government decision and it played no part in the decision. Therefore, I take it that the Deputy will withdraw his allegation in that regard.
The Minister's posterior was outside the window and he had to bring it back in.
The nettle had to be grasped by somebody. The B & I workforce performed well in difficult circumstances but, despite the injection of £106 million of taxpayers' money they remain in a weak competitive position My professional advisers estimated that up to £100 million required in the next decade would have to come from the taxpayers unless I took action. The amalgamated B & I and Irish Ferries now gives this island nation a strong competitive shipping giant under the Irish flag to compete with Sealink and other companies well into the next century.
Look at what happened to Sealink.
This new structure is fortunate because it has available to it the skills and talents of employees from the B & I and Irish Ferries to develop the company into the next century.
Answer the question on liability.
I appeal to all the staff to make it work. It is the best option for a secure future and without this action of mine and the Government it could have gone the way of Irish Shipping. Instead, they now have a fresh beginning and they deserve the support of this House.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 11 p.m.——
On a point of order——
Acting Chairman
The Deputy should resume his seat.
——several Deputies asked the Minister to respond to the question of liability of legal claims against the B & I Line, but the Minister made no reference to that in his reply.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy should please resume his seat.
Deputy Yates should ask Deputy Jim Mitchell about that.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies McCartan and Flanagan.
Question declared carried.
Will the Minister indicate when it is proposed to take Committee Stage?
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party may I indicate that there will be no agreement between the Whips that this matter will be taken next week?
The Minister must indicate the date on which it is proposed to take Committee Stage.
Next Tuesday, subject to the agreement of the Whips.
——subject to railroading it through.
There will be no agreement between the Whips for taking this matter until such time has elapsed to allow the Minister answer the very serious questions which he has left unanswered as far this Bill is concerned.
May I take the opportunity——
The liabilities against the B & I Line——
If you were in Government, B & I would have been closed down a year ago.
Will Deputy McCartan please resume his seat while we listen to Deputy Howlin. I will come to him in a moment.
May I ask the Minister and the Government Chief Whip to reflect between now and the ordering of the Committee Stage of this Bill on the wishes of this side of the House and defer the Committee Stage until the next session so that some reasonable attention can be given to the drafting of the amendments.
On behalf of The Workers' Party I, too, would like to signal the absence of agreement on our part to the Committee Stage being taken next Tuesday and I join with the others in asking that time be given to this House to reflect on what is proposed, and in consultation with all concerned to reflect on whatever amendments may be brought forward on Committee Stage.
I must indicate the position of the Chair. We have had an indication from the Minister that the Committee Stage should be taken next Tuesday. Bearing in mind the comments that have been made, I am taking it that I must put it as a question. I will put that question to the House because that is the only way the Chair can deal with that matter. The Chair must act in accordance with the rules of the House——
Santa Claus comes on Tuesday.
Whatever about anyone who might come, if Deputy Rabbitte cannot behave himself, I know who will go.
On a point of order, Sir, I understood the Government proposition——
That is not the correct procedure.
If Deputy O'Keeffe could stop for just a moment.
I will make a point that needs to be made.
I understood that the Government proposition was that the matter would be taken next week, subject to the agreement of the Whips. I understood that indicated there would be in the intervening period an opportunity for the Whips to meet. In that event, I suggest that perhaps a better order for the peace of the House, if for no other reason, would be to allow the question remain over until the Whips meet and discuss the matter further.
The Chair would like to think that he is as concerned about order and peace as much as any other Deputy, but the Chair must carry out the duties of the Chair in accordance with what is required of the Chair. It gives me no pleasure to be doing this, especially when the Chair does not enjoy the popularity that other people can when they are pursuing other lines. The position is that if the Minister indicates to me that he requests that Committee Stage be ordered for a certain date that is the question I shall put to the House.
It is the Government's intention to take Committee Stage of the Bill next Tuesday. The House should decide on that now.
Question put: "That Committee Stage be ordered for Tuesday, 17 December 1991."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.
Question declared carried.