Deputy Mitchell reported progress and will resume the debate.
B & I Line Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2. —(1) The Minister for Finance shall not sell or otherwise dispose of all or any shares in the Company, other than with the consent of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(2) Where the Minister wishes to sell or otherwise dispose of any such shares, he shall lay an order before both Houses of the Oireachtas specifying:
(a) the person or persons to whom he wishes to sell or dispose of any such shares,
(b) the price proposed,
(c) any terms or conditions attached to the sale or disposal,
and no sale or disposal shall take place until such time as both Houses of the Oireachtas have passed a motion approving the order.".
—(Deputy Byrne.)
When the debate was adjourned last night I had just commenced my contribution on the amendments before us. I consider these amendments to be important as they go to the core of the national interest in relation to shipping, that is, the need to guarantee continuity of service in the future. In other words, it is self-evident that an island nation needs to be able to guarantee that there will be available at all times in the future ferry services to Britain and the Continent. I also made the point that it would be highly desirable to seek to recreate a deep sea Irish merchant shipping fleet.
As we are all aware, under EC rules we are confined in what we can do to guarantee continued Irish ownership of the shipping fleet but there are a number of things we can do, as I have said. First, we could set down generous investment limits under the business expansion scheme in relation to shipping. In 1986-87 the Government of which I was a member extended that scheme to include shipping. However the Government which followed soon afterwards in March 1987 so restricted investment limits in shipping as to render the extension of the business expansion scheme to it meaningless. Yet the business expansion scheme is one of the few vehicles available to guarantee Irish ownership because it is based on investment by Irish taxpayers in Irish companies. I ask the Minister to seize this opportunity to create the basis to guarantee Irish ownership of the deep sea shipping fleet in the future by reopening the business expansion scheme to shipping. This is a crucial point if we are to guarantee continuity of service.
There has been much valid criticism directed at the Minister over the way in which he has handled this matter. It is easy to criticise the Minister of the day but some of the criticism on this occasion is valid. Much of the criticism, however should be directed not towards the Minister in the House but towards the Department of Finance. The Minister is proposing to spend up to £36 million of public funds to clear the debts of the B & I having put in £8 million to £9 million per year on average for the past several years. I recall, when I was Minister for Tourism and Transport, proposing to the Department of Finance that we take on board debts totalling £20 million for the B & I and set them up as an operating company, not without debts, but with sufficient debts to give them a gearing of at least one to one; in other words, their debts would not be greater than their assets. The Minister has gone further and is going to clear all their debts leaving the B & I as a very pluckable pear. They will be free of debts despite the fact that they have considerable assets some of which are greatly understated. For example, the pension fund and some other assets of the company are greatly understated. This is a matter of concern.
That point has been made. The point I want to make is that much of the criticism which has been focused on the Minister should be directed at the Department of Finance. The fact of the matter is that the performance of the Department of Finance in relation to the B & I has been replicated in my experience in other areas of public expenditure. If the Department of Finance had accepted the proposal made by the Department of Tourism and Transport in 1986, what is happening today to the B & I would have happened earlier and the Exchequer would have been caught for a smaller amount — estimated at £20 million then as compared to £36 million now, a difference of £16 million, in addition to the money which has been spent in the meantime. We are talking therefore about a figure of up to £50 million of taxpayers' money which has been spent in the meantime. I think it would have helped the B & I to get off to a much better start.
Having said this, I agree that considerable improvements have been made in B & I. The board and staff deserve our praise but so, too, do the Department. B & I were a mess for many decades. There were many difficult problems and entrenched practices in the company but a great number of them have been sorted out over the years with a great deal of difficulty and pain. These problems were tackled by the board, the management, the workforce and, indeed, the Department, and that has led to an improved performance by B & I over recent years. As well as praising the B & I performance we must also praise ICG, the remnants of Irish Shipping which tragically and heartbreakingly had to be liquidated in 1986. As Minister at the time, no decision caused me more pain and no decision was more justified than that one.
We have an opportunity in this Bill to resurrect an Irish deep sea shipping fleet. I had always hoped that Irish Continental Line, now Irish Continental Group, would be the basis of a new deep sea shipping fleet. Unfortunately, regardless of whether the buy-out is by management or by Irish Continental Group, the Bill will result in fewer jobs in shipping at a time of record national unemployment. We should be seeking ways and means of creating new job opportunities because we have a great number of highly qualified shipping personnel. There is an opportunity to create more jobs rather than adding to the unemployment figures which will happen as a result of the takeover permitted by this Bill. More jobs will be created only if there is investment in shipping and, most likely, if that is Irish investment. Irish investment in shipping is most likely to be encouraged and faciliated if the business expansion scheme is generously opened up to shipping rather than restricted as was done by former Deputy MacSharry when he was Minister in 1987.
Deputy Mitchell has used the amendment to put forward some historical justification for his decision, and that of the then Government, in respect of Irish Shipping. I do not wish to follow him down that shipping lane, not because I do not have views on it but because I do not think it adds a great deal to this amendment. Perhaps the strategic argument he raised is more appropriate to our amendment No. 3. However, he raised an important point concerning the traditional debt-equity ratio which strangled the performance of B & I. I recall in a different capacity making arguments to Deputy Mitchell, when he was Minister for Transport, to tackle that debt-equity stranglehold. I did not know until today that he apparently took most of my arguments on board and that it was the Department of Finance who thwarted their implementation.
It is extraordinary, and it is fair to point out, that the present Minister has managed to find — this is one of the central elements of the amendment — £36 million to wipe the balance sheet clear. The significance of that was lost on the Minister, Deputy Brennan's backbench assistants of yesterday who professed not to be able to understand it and who — in full flight they are quite a sight — argued, if there are other buyers out there, where are they? The point being made was that if the Minister made the dramatic decision at a time of scarce resources to find £36 million to wipe the balance sheet clear, he ought, by any commercial criteria, to have given B & I the opportunity to trade in their new financial condition so that the multiple of pre-tax profits that would be the yardstick of the purchase of that company in any normal commercial sphere in the future would bring in so much more revenue to the State. That point was made to the Minister by the board. The board do not accept, nor do financial commentators, unions and others, that the normal tendering process was observed or that the Minister observed the normal privatisation prologue of which the Government already have experience in the case of, for example, the Irish Sugar Company. That is the nub of the matter.
Why is there such indecent haste in this matter? In a Dáil session in which major Bills have had to be dropped because we could not get around to them and other Bills badly need to be progressed, why does the Minister have to railroad the Bill through this House, without any notice, in order to sell off this company to ICG at such a disadvantage to the taxpayer? That is the nub of the point which the Minister has not explained.
Several issues were raised yesterday and I would like to deal with some of them on this amendment. Deputy Yates took me to task about the golden share — he seems to be very interested in that concept. To take on board that suggestion would obviously entail some Government control over the future direction of the company and, in the manner in which the Deputy put forward the point, it simply would not be practical. The Government's primary strategic concern for the future relates to capacity and to ensuring that the routes are competitive. If a change of ownership resulted in a restriction of competition at any stage, no Government would hesitate to invoke the substantial safeguards that exist at present under European Community and national law. The imposition of a golden share would not necessarily give any more control than exists at present.
The imposition of a golden share would most certainly have lowered the price we have been able to achieve because potential investors would naturally be wary, in my view of potential restrictions, of disposal of shares at any time. In other words, anything which affects the saleability and tradeability of shares obviously affects the price, and in regard to the golden share I am certain that would have been the reaction of any potential purchaser.
The point was made yesterday that ICG could sell off the company at some stage and that that would be a shame, but so too could MSBO. There is no legal reason why they or their Danish backers would not sell the company to other Danish backers, and we would have no control over that. The Danish backers might find themselves with plenty of money and might make an offer that the company could not refuse with the result that the entire company would become Danish. If we make the claim that ICG could sell the company at any time, let us be fair and also admit that so too could the MSBO or their Danish supporters. There are two sides to that story and we should put them on record.
I would refer Deputies to the agreement of the trade unions, which I placed on the record of the House yesterday, in regard to the question of the golden share. I understand their position but they are reasonably satisfied with the assurances I have given in the matter. I would like Deputy Yates to think again about some of those points. The question of indemnities and warranties was raised yesterday. I have given a very full explanation to the House on the question of indemnities and emphasised that they were also sought by the management-staff buy-out. Certain warranties are being given to ICG as part of the share purchase agreement and every reasonable step has been taken to ensure the greatest possible protection for the Exchequer. I pointed out yesterday that I am restricted in referring to this matter because of the court case in regard to the major indemnity. With the exception of that item, I will give any other details required by the Deputies in the course of this debate.
Allegations have been made about the undue haste in this matter and that the sale was pushed through — the phrase used in the last few days is "railroaded". This matter has been going on for more than 12 months. It is over 12 months since I publicly announced that the Government had decided to sell the company to Irish Ferries. The suggestions that this was a railroading exercise are unfounded but may, perhaps, have something to do with the end of season pressure on Parliament and Government to get the business done by a certain date. The facts do not substantiate the claim that the Government railroaded the deal through.
When Stokes Kennedy Crowley spoke to the Danish backers of the consortium on 2 October they stated clearly that they would require only two weeks to make a final bid. They had already been associated with the previous bid a year earlier and their partners in that consortium were the company's existing management. They had been involved in it over a 12-month period which again shows, in my view, that there was no question of undue haste. On 21 October, the chief executive of B & I informed me that he would have a firm and final bid with me on behalf of the MSBO consortium within three weeks. The industrial officer of ICTU on behalf of the B & I group of unions also requested a period of three weeks in which to prepare a bid with the management consortium. When account is taken of extensions, as I pointed out on Second Stage, we agreed finally on a period of five weeks in which to make the final bid. That was acceptable to all those making bids and, therefore, I do not understand why it should become a major problem for other people. The people who wished to submit a bid got more time than they asked for in which to do so and, according to my records, they were satisfied with the time allowed.
No, they were not.
When the matter subsequently became a political issue, allegations of undue haste were bandied across the floor.
It was always a political issue from the time the Government decided to sell.
They were always unhappy with it.
Let us hear the Minister without interruption.
The consortium got the time they asked for, in fact, they got two weeks more than they had asked for. I have documentation to support that. I cannot operate on hearsay or on quotations from newspapers.
I talked to them at the time and they were very unhappy.
A totally false impression has been given in this debate also in regard to the profitability of the company. Reference has been made to a trading profit of £4 million for the year 1992. Let me put a very basic, but important fact on the record: the £4 million referred to is a very optimistic forecast for 1992 and is a 100 per cent improvement on the forecast outturn for 1991. I read the facts of B & I's actual performance into the record on Second Stage and I will repeat now for the benefit of Deputies, because the matter has been raised on this amendment, the actual results since 1984. The trading profit before interest charges were as follow: 1984, a loss of £1.7 million——
The Minister should start with 1987, when the five year plan was put into operation.
I will get to 1987, if I start at 1984.
The reason we let 800 workers go in 1987 was because of profitability.
We should hear the Minister out.
The Minister keeps misleading the House.
If Deputies ignore the Chair in this fashion I will have to deal with them.
I apologise, Sir.
The trading results before interest charges were: 1984, a loss of £1.7 million; 1985, a profit of £1.1 million; 1986, a profit of £1.1 million; 1987, a loss of £3.6 million; 1988, a profit of £1.8 million; 1989, a profit of £2 million; and 1990, a profit of £1.6 million. The results after charging interest were: 1984, a loss of £9.2 million; 1985, a loss of £6.6 million; 1986, a loss of £6.8 million; 1987, a loss of £10.7 million; 1988, a loss of £2.8 million; 1989, a loss of £1.5 million; and 1990, a loss of £2 million.
In the same period, 1984-90 the Exchequer injected a total of £59 million in equity into the B & I Line. Indeed, as I have already pointed out, since we made this acquisition from the private sector a total of £106 million of taxpayers' money has been invested in the company. Deputies must speak, and quite rightly so, on behalf of the company and the workers, but somebody must also speak on behalf of the taxpayers because they are entitled to a voice in this debate also. We have invested £106 million in the company over a ten-year period and according to the original Stokes Kennedy Crowley report, a similar figure will be required to be invested over the next decade. It is important that the taxpayers' voice, and not just the voice of the various interests involved in the disposal, is heard on the Floor of this Chamber today.
That is who we are trying to defend.
One hundred and six million pounds is a lot of money, and we have two ships to show for it at the end of the day. I was very taken aback by the negative attitude of some Opposition Deputies to the agreement I reached with ICTU and the B & I group of unions. Despite the reservations of some Deputies, I think we achieved a major breakthrough. I greatly appreciate, and I wish to thank publicly the B & I workers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in concluding this agreement with me. The attitude yesterday of some of the Deputies to this breakthrough is to be regretted because it was a substantial agreement that showed that both sides to this argument were willing to lay aside their basic positions and reach agreement for the future of the company. It was a pity that Deputies were not a bit more generous in complimenting the unions and the ICTU on reaching agreement, although I certainly would not accept them to compliment the Government on it.
Deputy Yates suggested that we should have offered the workers similar rights to those offered to the workers in the Sugar Company in 1990. Let me say that this is exactly what we have done in this agreement and we have offered broadly similar rights as were offered to workers in the Sugar Act, 1990. The Deputy was quite right to raise the matter and I am pleased to say that is what we have done. The amendment contained the wording already used in the Sugar Act, 1990.
I wish to reject the suggestion that I do not have the support at this time of the board and management of B & I. I wish to place on record the absolute and unequivocal commitment by the chairman that the board would co-operate fully with the sale to Irish Continental Group. The chief executive of B & I also gave a similar explicit commitment on behalf of the management and staff of the company. I ask Deputies to note that this is the attitude of the chief executive and members of the board and not what they suggested. There were difficulties and arguments with the board and I argued vehemently with the board about how to proceed and they quite rightly argued the case with me. The worker-directors involved quite rightly spoke up about how they saw things and I spoke up on behalf of the taxpayer. Finally we reached a meeting of minds on the matter, and the board, the chief executive and I broadly accept the direction in which we are proceeding.
It was suggested that I had been making a "sweetheart deal" with Irish Ferries. I regard that suggestion as outrageous. If it was the case, why has the share price of Irish Ferries hardly shifted in the past 12 months? The fact is that since the sale was first announced the company's shares have remained more or less static — in other words, the hardnosed market people did not rush to buy the shares when Irish Ferries were offered this jewel and the share price did not move. This "steal" did not affect the share price. It is important that we take careful note of this because that is the market speaking and they were not at all excited by the deal that they landed. They had a very neutral attitude to it as can be seen from any examination of the share price.
Deputies have also tried consistently to maintain that I approached only one company. Again I know that politicians will say these things, because their job is to wave the big flag and hopefully some of the mud they throw will stick. Irish Ferries were not the only company that were approached. It was also suggested that I used the MSBO offer as a stalking horse to put the price up. One cannot have it both ways. I am being accused of making a sweetheart deal with Irish Ferries so that they could get a few "bob" out of it and at the same time I am being accused of getting the MSBO to put in a counter bid so that Irish Ferries would have to pay more. That is totally contradictory, both cannot be true, yet both are coming out of the mouth of the same Deputy at the same time.
The Minister has a horror of what the financial journalists would have had to say if he had sold the company for £6.5 million.
They are totally contradictory suggestions so both cannot be true. One states that I am doing a sweetheart deal with Irish Ferries so that they get a few bob and then in the next breath I am told that I used the MSBO as a stalking horse to jack up the price on Irish Ferries. What does the Deputy mean? Both statements cannot be correct.
Although the Deputy probably will not listen, I want to put on the record that Stokes Kennedy Crowley got six reputable firms to examine the purchase very seriously and formally. Those firms are substantial bidders: the P & O Line, MERSK, Cenargo, Irish Continental Group, the management consortium with Danish backers and the management-staff buy out consortium, again with Danish backers. I shall not embarrass the House by saying how many of those firms walked away after shutting the books. It would be unfair to the workers in particular if I were to quote some of the comments made by some of those firms about the company. One of them offered me £1 for the company, after I would have had taken out the debt. That is the sweetheart deal that Deputies are talking about.
Deputy Byrne is very fond of waving newspaper reports at me.
Sometimes it is the best source of information we can get.
The Minister should be heard without interruption.
I am glad the Deputy thinks so, because here I have two articles which show that journalists, like politicians, will take different views, probably depending on who they had the last jar with in the bar.
I do not drink with journalists.
The Deputy's attributes are admirable.
Thank you very much.
A leading financial journalist for one of the biggest selling national newspapers, the Sunday Independent, refers to the “solid ferry deal” and goes on to say that the management buy-out proposal was not tied down and would have cost more, that the company had been on the market for most of the year and that it was not surprising that the ICG offer, solid and uncomplicated, was accepted. The article generally makes the point that the deal was a good one.
In the Sunday Business Post, Mark O'Connell writes that I made the best decision in selling the Irish Continental Group.
Read it from the beginning.
What is the heading?
The headline states that the staff are angry.
Read the whole script.
The analysis in that article is that the decision taken was a good one.
Remember, he is a political journalist.
Acting Chairman
We are debating the amendment and the Minister should be allowed continue.
We have all been in the House long enough to realise that when we wave around a newspaper article in support of a point we make there is probably another article in which a different viewpoint is taken. One procedure that has developed much in the House in recent times is for a Deputy to have a chat with a journalist — there is nothing wrong with that, it is quite in order — and explain his or her point of view; the journalist quite rightly publishes that point of view and then the Deputy gets up in the House, waves the newspaper article around and asks the House for an opinion on what he refers to as an independent viewpoint.
This article states that the staff are angry.
One does not have Brendan McGrath writing on that basis.
Acting Chairman
I have to intervene at this point and say that the debate is becoming disorderly. Please allow the Minister to continue. When I call the Deputies they will have an opportunity to contribute.
I have no idea whether the Deputy talked to the journalist.
I think that it is only fair that the record be put right in relation to what the Minister refers to.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy will have an opportunity to do that in a moment.
The Deputy should read what is written across the top of that article.
"Staff angry at sweet B & I deal."
Read the piece above that.
Acting Chairman
The debate on this very important issue is not of a very high standard.
Believe me, it is a sweet deal for the taxpayer.
I have given some responses to the suggestions that were made on the Floor of the House yesterday. I shall have other points to make as the debate proceeds.
Acting Chairman
Several Members have offered and I shall call them in the order in which they have offered: Deputy Eric Byrne, Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan and Deputy Ivan Yates.
On a point of order, Sir, I ask that you have regard to numerical strength in the House.
Acting Chairman
I am having regard to the Member who indicated first to me and I am calling Deputy Eric Byrne to speak.
I wish to make one point of order. Deputy Byrne has spoken on the amendment already this morning when you were not in the Chair. I did indicate to the Chair before you came into the Chamber that I wished to speak but I am quite happy to have Deputy Byrne speak.
Acting Chairman
Then do not waste important time now, I understand that time is restricted.
For the record, I did not speak this morning.
On a point of order, I do not consider numerical strength to be a deciding factor when there are amendments down in all of our names.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is right. It is entirely a matter for the Chair. I did say that I shall call the Deputies in the order in which they indicated to me. I call on Deputy Eric Byrne.
The Chair has to have regard to fairness.
I shall be very brief. The incredibly weak defence put forward by the Minister that somehow or other the rug is pulled from under our arguments when we quote newspaper reports and then he in turn produces articles written by other journalists that state different things is quite outrageous. I argue very strongly that Brendan McGrath, the markets editor of The Irish Times has no political axe to grind. Very clearly he is a man who, as markets editor, understands the world of capital and understands the way in which money can be made and how it can be lost. In fairness to the journalists about whom we have spoken, we have to remember that they are not cheap, shoddy journalists. They are professionals in their own field — and they have expertise in the market.
I agree with that.
It is very important, therefore, to put on the record the position as outlined by this man, whom we have already quoted.
I am outraged at the scandalous haste with which the Minister is pushing the Bill through the House. Coming up to Christmas time; we are in an era of massive scandals — Greencore, Telecom, Carysfort — and now the Bill to sell the B & I Line is being rushed through. The Minister has given no adequate explanation as to the need for such waste.
I suppose there is no harm in my quoting the same Brendan McGrath when suggesting that it is either the Minister or the Department who want to be rid of B & I. Brendan McGrath writes that the deal is thoroughly bad and seems to be based primarily on a feeling within the Department of Transport that the best option available is to get B & I off the Government's balance sheet, no matter how poor the deal.
The Minister attempted to suggest that the golden share would affect the saleability of B & I. That is not the political point we have been making. Our political argument, going back 12 months, was that the Government took the decision to off-load B & I at apparently any cost. We were not particularly interested in the saleability. We were arguing that, whatever about the future, about what might become apparent in the full light of day, if sufficient time had been given to the issue we could debate in the House in a more reasoned way the possible disposal of some of the Minister's share, the possible involvement in a worker/management buy-out, the possibility of a joint venture between management, workers and the Government.
We do not support the sale of B & I. In fact, we consider now to be the worst time for any Government to consider the sale of the B & I company. The reason for saying that is, as has been pointed out by professional economic journalists and markets editors, that we are here essentially to defend the rights and the interests of the taxpayer but the Minister is disposing of B & I in a sweetheart arrangement that will give the least return possible to the taxpayer.
We agree with the Minister that until 1987 or 1988 the company were in dire straits; we agree that it was not very successful. However, after hammering out a five year deal with the unions and the management a remarkable change took place in B & I. In fact the rate of success surprised many of those who initiated the plan. In that respect it is important to mention senior officials of the trade union movement and, of course, Mr. Kennedy, chief executive of the B & I, who must be given credit for achieving that remarkable turnaround.
What is now happening, late in 1991? The Government have decided to clear the £36 million debt which has been the one bugbear or problem which has inhibited the B & I from showing real profits. Had the Minister wanted to give taxpayers a proper deal or return why did he not do what he intends doing on behalf of a private company? Why did he not scrub the debt this year, or last year, retaining a golden share, given share ownership to management and workers? The Minister had ample time in which to negotiate such a deal. We could have had ships vying on the Irish seas, between Ireland and England and the Continent, on the southern and central corridors, with a shipping line showing real profits today and, next year, potentially more, had the Minister only scrubbed the crucifying debt. In the Minister's philosophy what is so different between scrubbing it on behalf of a private enterprise and on behalf of taxpayers in order to re-create a shipping company who would trade more profitably in real terms?
Deputy Yates tabled an amendment seeking the retention of a golden share. While we are opposed to the sale of the B & I per se, particularly at this time, there were alternatives the Minister should have examined, such as a combination of his retention of a golden share with an involvement in share ownership by B & I workers and management. Indeed the happy relationship that would have resulted therefrom would have constituted the ideal solution and a better way forward.
As I said last week, I cannot for the life of me understand how the Government are being allowed to introduce this Bill which essentially constitutes retrospective legislation. Perhaps the Minister will have an opportunity to answer that point. The Minister has arranged the sale of the B & I Line to the Irish Continental Group. He has arranged deals with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the B & I group of unions. All of those arrangements have been put in place before this Bill has been passed. I cannot understand how the Minister can manage to get away with selling the company, indeed, signing, sealing and delivering these deals on behalf of all the interested groups, without the requisite legislative base. I will leave it at that.
I contend that the real way to protect taxpayers would be by acceptance of our amendment No. 1. At present they are getting a rotten deal. The Minister will have to do much better than merely criticise us for resorting to newspaper reports to back up our case. The public want to know the facts. In this economic climate they want to know how it has been so easy for the Government to eliminate a £36 million debt in favour of a private company when they could not have done the same on behalf of the residents of this city who have a share in the B & I Line.
We have dealt in some detail with most of the points raised yesterday but there are a number of small ones I should like to raise with the Minister. I might add that I will not be waving any papers at him across the Chamber. I have read and studied the relevant papers, which is normal practice in the case of the sale of a company as important as the B & I. I have read all the commentaries, have studied them and made my own inquiries. As the Minister said, contradictory views can be advanced, depending on how one views the matter. Nonetheless the Minister indicated the strategic importance of a shipping line to the country. I should like to emphasise to the Minister that I too believe it is of strategic importance that we have Government input into such a shipping line, particularly in the current climate, in the context of our movement into Europe, when it will be even more important that the State should control some aspect of it. I was not a member of the Government when Irish Shipping was sold. Had I been I would not have agreed to its sale because it was a disastrous decision. It is my firm belief that we need a shipping line such as Irish Shipping or the B & I Line.
The Minister indicated that this proposal was negotiated in the national/taxpayers' interests. Of course, taxpayers' interest are of strategic importance to such a line, which would have access to Europe in the context of the Single Market and so on. In that context I hope Structural Funds will be forthcoming to secure that line. In addition the workers' input into turning it around should be recognised. The Minister has bandied figures around about profitability and so on which I cannot substantiate or argue against since I am not an accountant but I do know the workers have turned the line around from its earlier lossmaking position and their views should be considered.
I take the point the Minister made, and perhaps he was referring to me when he spoke of the trade union movement yesterday. When I studied the agreement between the Minister, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the B & I group of unions on receiving from the Minister one line stood out. It was:
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the B & I group of unions acknowledge the view of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communicatins that the acquisition is in the best long term interests of B & I, its employees and customers and also acknowledge his views ...
"acknowledge his views" it does no more than that. Later the same agreement states:
The Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications accepts the legitimate concerns of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in relation to the future development and ownership of the B & I company and the development of Ireland's access transport services. To address these concerns the Minister hereby affirms that the Government ...
The document went on to detail those Government proposals. While the Irish Congress of Trade Unions acknowledge the Minister's views on this proposal — whether they agree with him is another matter — and while I acknowledge them, I have certain views I should like to put to the Minister. It is my firm belief that it is in the national interest that the Minister have control of at least 51 per cent of the company which is sought in my amendment No. 7.
The Minister referred to rushed legislation. We have had legislation rushed through the House before and we know what happened. For example, there was the infamous rod licence Bill passed, I think, in 1987 whose repercussions remain. We have still not solved that problem — it will continue into the next year — because we had not the sense at the time to acknowledge that it was rushed legislation which would have a serious effect on quite a number of people. The same thing, in a completely different context, could apply to this Bill. The Minister has contended that he announced it 12 months ago; perhaps he did; perhaps he had discussions and that there were many behind the scenes movements. But this House was not aware of that. This House was not given an opportunity of discussing the proposal with the Minister or of putting forward Members' views on such an important issue. Where I must disagree with the Minister — and I put this loudly and clearly on the record — is that we have not been given the opportunity of an indepth discussion of the points he raised. The number and contents of amendments should indicate to the Minister our fears in relation to the sale of the B & I Line.
I reiterate that there has been a restructuring of the company in recent years resulting in an enormous turn-around. Reluctantly I say to the Minister that he may be doing taxpayers a disservice because, four or five years hence, the B & I might have been a very profitable company in the sense that they might have further restructured and streamlined their operations, with the benefit of Structural Funds. Also the workers could see the result of their input to the restructuring of B & I. The Minister said that ICG could sell off, as could the MSBO, but in the latter case they would be reluctant to do so because they would have a lifetime of experience in that company. I have been through the experience of redundancy. In a very short time the message strikes home that the compensation received is very little compared with the amount of work done and the length of service. People who have a personal stake in a company will be reluctant to sell because they will be left with nothing at the end of the day.
The Minister has been very clever in representing his case as being in the interest of the taxpayers. It is essential that in ten or 20 years time this nation has a State service which can carry our goods to and from Europe. The Minister should have held 51 per cent of the shares and we could have had the best of both worlds.
I congratulate the Minister on showing considerable skill at what I suppose Deputy Rabbitte would call deceit but which I would more charitably term manipulation, distortion and a representation of the facts to suit his own arguments. The Minister started to play the game when Deputy Byrne had kicked in the ball in relation to newspaper quotations. The Minister said he could produce quotations to support his side of the story. To show how skilful he is at distorting, misrepresenting and manipulating his arguments I will refer to the two articles from which he quoted, published on 8 December last in the Sunday Business Post and the Sunday Independent. The first article was by Mark O'Connell and the second by a fair commentator, Martin Fitzpatrick. The Minister omitted to mention the third last paragraph in Mr. Fitzpatrick's article which stated that, “Superficially at least, the argument was that the deal is an inexpensive one and ICG is getting a `steal'.” The Minister declined to give his presentation of that.
The Deputy should have read the previous paragraph as well. It is different.
The Minister quoted extensively from Mr. O'Connell's article but overlooked the following:
After a year of tedious negotiations, Irish Continental Group has succeeded in clinching what is regarded as one of the softest takeover deals in recent times.
The article goes on to state:
As management and unions at the B & I protest that their buy-out proposal was not given the consideration it deserved, deeper questions will now be asked about why the Government was in such a hurry to privatise the company in the first place.
The article continues:
Seamus Brennan, the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, has been accused of setting up the B & I management and staff simply to exact a better deal from the ICG.
The Deputy is not bad at distortion.
If the Minister is able to make such bad news into good news for him it is no wonder we have difficulty in communicating with him.
Acting Chairman
Quotations are giving rise to interruptions.
The Minister also omitted to mention The Irish Times article of 6 December which stated that the Government were accused of betrayal as the ailing B & I Line was sold for £8.5 million. It also referred to B & I anger at the Minister's rejection of the management-staff buy-out and the Government decision to sell meeting with strong opposition.
From whom?
All these articles were written by journalists doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.
All Workers' Party newspapers.
The Minister has shown extraordinary skill at distortion, manipulation and misrepresentation. We cannot deny that he has skill in this area.
Abuse is no substitute for debate.
I did not start by quoting from newspapers. The Minister injected that argument. It is game, set and match against him.
Acting Chairman
Interruptions are exceeding what would normally be tolerated.
The Minister is under a lot of pressure. He has refused to answer some questions. He has said he cannot answer any questions in relation to the £17 million or $30 million claimed by Ro-Ro Ferries. I accept that. Are there any other claims against B & I and what is the extent of those claims? If Irish Ferries pull out of Pembroke will there be a claim there? What are the terms of the small print in relation to discounts from the £8.5 million? I understand £8.5 million is a maximum price. In what circumstances could we read in the newspapers in January or February that the price is actually less? Are there any other conditions attaching to this deal which the Minister has not yet outlined and which we should know about? I want the Minister to give details of all liabilities, discounts and any other conditions.
I have spoken about the Minister's ability to present things in a Carr Communications-type way. They have a special type of production for these things. Perhaps that ability extends to this trawl which includes P & O, Cenargo and other companies. When Cenargo offered £1 for this, what was the arrangement as regards the debt? Nobody would give £1 if the debt were not being written off. Those offers were made in 1990. What is now being sold is completely different from what was then on offer. The Government were not giving solid, cast iron commitments to write off the £36 million. The Minister is making fish of one and flesh of the other. He refused to publish the original Stokes Kennedy Crowley report.
I made specific allegations on Second Stage to which the Minister has not alluded. I stated that there were clear breaches of the Companies Act by the Minister, B & I and their board in relation to sections 127 and 128 and 131 of the Companies Act. The AGM has not been held, the data has not been submitted to the Companies Registration Office and the annual accounts have not been published on time. Those allegations were never properly answered and the Minister has failed in his obligations under the 1963 Companies Act. The Minister said that a golden share would reduce the price. The independent value is £20 million and the price is £8.5 million. The MSBO is history. If the MSBO were being proposed here, I would still be insisting on the same conditions in relation to resale and the golden share. We are talking about the common good, not any particular worker or shareholder. The strategic national interest is involved.
The Minister said that the share price has not gone through the roof. Irish Ferries have told me that they have not had access to the 1991 accounts of the B & I Line. The Minister has an advantage over Members of this House and everyone else in that there has been a very selective revelation of the details of this sale. As I said Irish Ferries said they have not had access to the 1991 accounts. All our information on the improvement there has been in 1991 and the subsequent projected further improvement in 1922 is based on B & I sources. I should like the Minister to give me specific answers to those points. I am quite happy to have the amendments put to a vote.
The Workers' Party would like to put this amendment to a vote as quickly as possible. I do not want to go down the road of quoting newspaper articles but I want to return to the theme raised by Deputy Yates which is very important. The Minister was an expert at communications before some of his colleagues heard about the term. Having had the opportunity to reflect on the matter overnight and say to the array of high calibre civil servants available to him, "Dig out effective little ripostes for me so that I can advance them in the House tomorrow; some of them are really getting close to the bone and I will find myself in the same campus as some of my colleagues in Government unless you can get me answers", the Minister came into the House this morning with the kind of answers which do not really answer anything. He tries to suggest that the Deputies on this side of the House are somehow representing vested interests. I think he is suggesting that Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan and Deputy éric Byrne are representing the workers and trade unions and Deputy Ivan Yates is representing the management and board or something like that and that they are exclusive to the interests of the taxpayer. That is the kind of sleight-of-hand which has nothing to do with this argument. The truth of the matter is that the arguments being advanced by the trade unions and the board and management of the company are in both cases about the lousy deal being got for the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer who is being cheated because of the unsatisfactory deal.
I will not quote any newspaper commentators except to say that I am greatly amused at the Minister's theory that a trend has recently developed where Deputies over here talk to journalists, what they say appears in the newspapers and they quote it as independent comment. If the Minister thinks that the journalists in this town talk to Deputies from The Workers' Party and trot out their comments as independent comment he really is living in another world. He has some expertise in this area himself. Unlike my colleague, Deputy Byrne, I talk to journalists and they tell me how effective the Minister's personal secretary is in this area and how he is rarely off the phone to them when any advance of the Minister's interest is called for. The Minister knows what he is talking about when he talks about this kind of thing.
I will not rely on any of the journalists who have been referred to. I would rather quote briefly from a letter dated 9 December signed by Mr. Alex Spain, Chairman of the B & I Line, and which was sent to all the staff. I should like the Minister and his civil servants to hear this. He states:
In the event the consultative process has been unsatisfactory. You will be aware through your representatives on the board that the Minister was advised by the independent Board Committee of the increased value that could be achieved for the Exchequer through options other than immediate sale. He was further advised that if he were proceeding to immediate sale that the best price was likely to be achieved by a full process of competing bids.
The Board is aware that there are precedents for favourable arrangements for the workforce when State-owned companies are privatised. There is merit in such a policy. The Board Committee indicated to the Minister that any such arrangements with the B & I workforce would be a matter for Government.
It is evident that there is deep disappointment and anger through the Company at the manner in which matters have been handled.
What in the name of God is anyone to make of that letter? I want to emphasise that this letter was not written by some shop steward or trade union official but by the chairman of the company. I think I know Alex Spain at least as well as the Minister. He was the man with whom I negotiated the 1987 agreement. Alex Spain can scarcely be described as holding a trade union point of view but he is outraged at the manner in which matters have been handled.
The Minister will have to accept, having given us a lecture on communications, that you do not get the chairman of a State company writing that kind of letter without there being very serious cause to do so. In fact, I cannot remember a precedent. My criticism of chairpersons or chairmen of State companies is that they rarely put their thoughts strongly and clearly to their Minister. One can imagine the kind of anger which gave rise to this letter. That is the situation but the Minister has not dealt with it. Mr. Spain criticises the manner in which the sale was handled, the absence of competition in the tendering process and the immediate sale which he says will bring the worst price and says that if they must sell the company immediately they should have proper competing bids.
The Minister waved a pile of papers at me yesterday which caused me to remember when the former Minister for Justice. Mr. Michéal ó Moráin, whom I used to read about in "Backbencher", put his briefcase on the bench and threatened to open it about certain Deputies in the House. I do not recall the Minister giving me the answers he told me about or if he did I did not recognise them as answers. There is really no point in the Minister coming in here and lecturing Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan about his comments on the trade union agreement. Let us put that into perspective. One of the reasons the agreement did not proceed earlier with ICG is that they would not negotiate with the group of unions. I know ICG would not do business with them and I met the group of unions at the time. Trade union members now find themselves in the position where not only will there be additional redundancies but their very pension rights are at risk. Evidence that they are at risk is that the Minister has belatedly brought forward an amendment to cope with that situation. What would the Minister expect any group of workers to do in circumstances where they have been taken over by a company who would not negotiate with them and there is turmoil in the House about the handling of this issue but exploit that to get the best deal they could and protect their pension rights? That is exactly what I would have done in those circumstances. I would not, as Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan said, have welcomed the Minister's approach to the matter in the opening paragraphs of his statement. I presume that was the Minister's price in order to give them the pensions.
Clearly.
The Minister should not, therefore, come in here waving that piece of paper at me as though it were some great breakthrough. We agreed in far more difficult times in the B & I on measures which were to be taken. That is no great breakthrough and if the Minister thinks it pulls the rug from under the feet of Deputies on these benches I should say that it does not do anything like that.
The Minister did not name me but I think he accused me of saying that it was a sweetheart deal on the one hand and that it was being used to get ICG off the fence on the other hand. He has a point there: there is some logical connection missing in that — I should like to explain that when I said he was using the staff-management buy-out proposals to get ICG off the fence I was quoting Paul Smith, chairman of the group of unions, who made the point that day and who has a substantial argument to advance for it because ICG were a bit backward in coming forward and obviously knew they had their man where they wanted him.
If the Minister is asking me what my view is on the matter I will tell him my view very briefly in one sentence. As this issue drifted on through the summer, as the unions were proving Bolshie from ICG's point of view and as the scandals broke around the Head of the Government — scandals about insider trading, Greencore, Telecom, etc. — it was imperative that the Minister set up quickly a mock competition lest he be exposed to similar allegations in the House. I do not believe that Stokes Kennedy Crowley would ever come up with anything, it was Hobson's choice. It was like Henry Ford saying you could have any car as long as it was black.
I do not want the Minister to think that he has convinced me by the force of his arguments, and I envisage a situation where this will be the subject of an examination by the Committee of Public Accounts in terms of value for money at some stage in the future. I would greatly appreciate the managing director, Jim Kennedy, Alex Spain or the worker-director, Dermot Menton, and others appearing before the committee to air their views on what went on and why they were excluded. There is no point in misrepresenting the position and the Minister saying that he was assured by the managing director, the chairman and the worker directors that they would implement the deal. What kind of Bolshies does the Minister think they are? What else would they do? The Government put this through by a majority vote and I accept it; that is the way democracy works. What else would the board do? Of course they will co-operate but it does not convey the essence of their anger regarding the way it was handled and the bad deal for the taxpayers.
We are all repeating ourselves now. Obviously, I totally reject any suggestion that there was a mock competition. I have laid before the House on a number of occasions the lengthy, detailed and professional assessment procedure culminating in an assessment by senior officials of the Department of Finance, my Department and Stokes Kennedy Crowley Corporate Finance Limited. We have been working on this for almost one year and a half and the best deal has been achieved for the taxpayer. Of course every commentator can say that perhaps if we had waited for another year or two something else might have turned up. I accept the right of anyone to look two years ahead to try to assess what will happen in the market. However, the professional advice I took, the procedure I went through and the detailed analysis of the whole situation indicated that this was the best road to go.
One of the options was to liquidate the company, which I desperately wanted to avoid. This is probably the best way to proceed because it gives the workers and the company a future. The full quotation in the letter from Alex Spain dated 8 October states:
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 market.
The letter to which I referred was written in December.
We are referring to different letters. On 8 October 1991 Mr. Spain wrote to me. After the sentence which I have just quoted he went on:
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 then it is likely to be accepted.
That is exactly what the Government did, they accepted the highest bid in terms of the chairman's view. We could argue about different letters but I have quoted from the letter written in October.
I want to thank Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan for his comments. I am also concerned about the strategic situation but I am satisfied that there is enough legislation and clout to ensure that the strategic importance of shipping is recognised. The agreement which I signed with the trade union movement — and of which I am proud — is very solid progress; maybe "breakthrough" is going too far. I have acknowledged to them that shipping is of major strategic importance; we have agreed to differ on some points but the fact that we had a certain meeting of minds is important progress. Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan understands that I was not referring to him when I expressed disappointment at the manner in which the agreement was received by the House. I would have liked him to have been more enthusiastic but I was not criticising him.
Deputy Yates asked me about indemnities and other matters. There are two major indemnities, one in regard to Ro-Ro, on which I have gone as far as I can and the second is in regard to the m.v. Kilkenny. It arises from the accident involving the m.v. Kilkenny and the Hasselwerder on 21 November 1991 which provides for an indemnity against any net liability to the company after taking into account all related insurance receivables and claims against third parties. I understand that all appropriate insurances are in place; the indemnity specifically excludes adverse trading implications arising from the particular incident. The Deputy also asked about the Pembroke. There is no indemnity in respect of that ship. If the B & I pulled out in that case the new owners would have to bear any costs involved.
Deputy Byrne accused me of introducing retrospective legislation. This is legislation enabling the Minister for Finance to deal with debt, which is spread throughout the entire system and there are many other examples in this regard. It is not retrospective because any agreement with the purchasers is totally contingent on this House accepting the legislation. If the legislation is not passed there will not be a deal. Deputy Rabbitte asked a long series of questions on Second Stage and I have been through most of them, but I will check them again to see if I have responded to them all.
The Minister is at it again.
So is the Deputy.
I appreciate the answers which the Minister has given but I specifically asked about discounts. My understanding is that in the deal negotiated, if the B & I do not achieve certain turnover targets or asset-based targets for 1991, the price will be reduced from £8.5 million to a lower sum. The Minister did not refer to that. I also asked whether there were any other conditions attached to the deal regarding which we should be aware but the Minister did not allude to that point.
What is the extent of the insurance cover on the m.v. Kilkenny? Did the Minister imply, in the event of the insurance not covering adverse trading, if it transpired that the m.v. Kilkenny, hypothetically speaking, were in the wrong, in these circumstances there would be a claim for adverse trading by the Hasselwerder in relation to their losses? There is loss of life and cargo involved. Is there a capping on the insurance question and if so, at what level? Is there a trading claim? We do not want to have to move this time next year a Supplementary Estimate for £24 million to cover this vitally important matter, rushing it through with five minutes per speaker. The Minister did not respond to the breaches of the Companies Acts regarding which I made three allegations.
In regard to the m.v. Kilkenny as I have outlined, it is my clear information that all appropriate insurances are in place. All I can do is pass on that information. The indemnity specifically excludes any adverse trading implication which arise from the incident, and presumably that is on both sides.
Does it fall on the taxpayer?
The indemnity specifically excludes any adverse trading implications but obviously it depends on what is in the insurance policy. Appropriate insurances almost certainly include some aspect of trading. I will examine that aspect but I am virtually certain that appropriate insurances would include some aspect of loss of profits or whatever type of other insurance would be necessary. Appropriate insurances are in place. In regard to the Deputy's question about the price and trading, the Deputy is correct in saying that the maximum is £8.5 million. In very exceptional circumstances that could be reduced by £1 million. Nobody could envisage a situation arising where there would be such a detrimental fall in profits. Even if half of what the Deputies have said about next year's profits are true, then there is no question of that happening.
It ill-behoves the Minister to quote us. I should like to say for the record that Opposition Deputies have now proved conclusively on the Minister's latest submission to the House, that this House should sanction the final deal because we do not know what way this will go. I take it the Minister is now giving a commitment that all of these aspects will be covered and I wish to inform him that I for one will be holding him to this commitment. If there is a change there will be more about it.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny.)
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowely, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- (Wexford.)
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West.)
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- 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.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Sherlock and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—The Minister for Finance shall not sell or otherwise dispose of all or any shares in the Company other than to:
(a) employees of the Company, or
(b) a venture in which employees of the company hold a controlling interest.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are related to amendment No. 3 in the names of Deputies Byrne and Rabbitte. It is therefore proposed that for discussion purposes we take these three together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—Where the Minister considers it is necessary for the public interest, he may make an order requiring the Company to maintain any passenger or cargo service which it operates at the date of the coming into effect of this Act.".
No one can deny that because of our geographical location, this island depends a great deal on the central corridor. Indeed 41 per cent of our exports are transported via this corridor to Great Britain and the Continent. It is very important therefore that this amendment be accepted to protect the interests of the State. In addition to transporting most of our exports via the high seas between Ireland and Great Britain and the Continent, the majority of tourists who visit this country use those sea routes, and the crucial role played by the tourism sector in the economy is another important reason for protecting them.
We have to consider the question of how we are going to guarantee continuity of service for those manufacturers we invite to this country to establish an industrial base here in exporting the products that they produce to consumers all over the world? Second, if we cannot guarantee continuity of service how can we hope to build confidence within the tourism industry, especially among those who market Ireland as a tourist location, having regard to the increasing number of tourists coming to this country with their motor cars?
We have to recognise that key strategic interests are involved. In a sense, they have been protected to date because of State involvement in the B & I Line. Now that the Government have taken the decision to transfer ownership to the ICG, a private company whose aim is to make profits in carrying tourists from Great Britain and the Continent to Ireland, the Bill will be fundamentally flawed if the Minister refuses to accept our amendment.
While the world is relatively peaceful at present, one could pose the question when might it be necessary for the Minister to make an order requiring that our shipping routes or lanes and capacity be maintained to ensure that we continue to trade successfully. When Great Britain is eventually linked to mainland Europe via the Channel tunnel we will become more and more isolated. Indeed, we will be identified as the only member of the European Community which is an island nation. It is important therefore that Irish companies, entrepreneurs, investors and multinational corporations who provide a large number of people with employment be given a guarantee that these links will be maintained. Having regard to the fact that there will be no golden share, no State interest or involvement, having handed over our shipping interests to private enterprise, we will be extremely vulnerable.
The Minister has recognised that we will be vulnerable and the need to maintain control over these strategic links. In an article by Lorna Siggins in The Irish Times the Minister is reported as having said that one could sell any company in the country, if one picks up the tab for the debt, that we are getting to a situation where the company, the B & I Line, after a very sick time, are coming back to good health and that it would not be fair to all the people who have brought this about to let some bounty hunter pick up bits and pieces of a strategic business.
In a nutshell, that sums up our view also. This is a strategic business. I am not quite sure why the Minister changed his opinion on the strategic nature of shipping since 22 March 1990, but we ought to look at what he described to us as a guarantee in reading into the record his dealings with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the B & I group of unions. I am arguing that if the Minister does not embody our amendment in the Bill, which would give him and the State some control over shipping routes, the agreement reached with the ICG, the B & I group of unions and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will not be worth the paper it is written on.
In an effort to address the fears of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in particular, the Minister said that he could affirm that the Government fully accepted the importance of these shipping routes. He went on to say that they were seeking certain guarantees and that the ICG gave an undertaking to him that they would, for example, retain all existing B & I shipping routes, provide extra capacity on the m. v. Leinster, provide long term sustainable employment in the B & I and replace the B & I's container ships. Even though they are not the key elements we are seeking — because as they stand they are quite weak — unless legislative controls are built into the Bill which will give effect to this deal, all those indications from the ICG can be thrown out the window. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind — the Minister has changed his mind since 22 March 1990 — that as an island nation we need to maintain controls over our shipping lines. I am extremely concerned that this amendment will not be accepted and I take it that all parties on this side of the House are equally concerned.
I put down an amendment, No. 6b, which was grouped with another amendment and which proposes that in any sale or disposal of strategic shipping services the Minister and the Dáil would have to give their approval. I will certainly be supporting amendment No. 3 and voting for it. The Minister made great play of the agreement between his Department and the unions. That agreement states that ICG have indicated their intention to retain all B & I shipping routes. I would like the Minister to reaffirm to the House that, if that is so meaningful, so worthy of acknowledgement and so much of a breakthrough, he will be prepared to accept the amendment. The objective of the amendment is the same as that of the agreement in that it proposes to retain all existing B & I shipping routes. We are not saying that new routes should be invented but rather that the existing routes should be retained. I do not see how the Minister could have a problem with that.
This is a matter of the utmost concern. In my preparation for this Bill I studied the ICG annual reports. The chairman's statement from the Annual Report & Accounts 1990 of the Irish Continental Group makes interesting reading for anyone who is concerned about the maintenance of routes. It states:
As I previously reported in our interim statement, the Belfast-Liverpool Route continued to incur unacceptably heavy losses, despite the efforts of a dedicated management and workforce and consequently the route was closed in October 1990. The Board of Irish Continental Group, plc regrets that it was not possible to justify the continuation of the route. There was extraordinary profit, net of taxation, of IR£282,000, arising from the closure of the service and sale of the vessel used on the route, m.v. Saint Colum I.
If Tom Toner and his friends in ICG find they are facing unacceptable heavy losses on the southern corridor, specifically on the Rosslare-Pembroke route, they may, despite the best efforts of the Government, management and the workforce, decide to close down the route. What can the Minister do to assure us that he will not stand by, as an idle spectator, and observe that happening.
This runs at the very core of a transport problem in this country in that all shipping matters are essentially matters for the Department of the Marine. Because Departments other than the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications deal with transport matters, that Department do not understand the full agenda of issues involved in shipping. Irish Continental Group propose to establish three separate units in their operations: a container operation service, a Dublin port handling company and a passenger unit. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this fig leaf, as I referred to it yesterday, this so-called agreement which is acceptable in terms of pay and conditions in that it makes some attempt to ensure fair play, similar to the case of Greencore workers, will be of any use in relation to strategic issues. Therefore I put it to the Minister that the current climate is one of extreme difficulty in relation to certain routes.
Let us examine the southern corridor. At present on the short haul route the principal operator is Stena Sealink. They have a very fine ship, the m.v. Felicity operating on that route, and the m.v. Hibernia operates the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead route. It is an open secret that Sealink incurred very serious trading losses in 1990 and 1991. With the commissioning of these very expensive ships my understanding is that their borrowing limit has increased to £300 million, they have incurred a balance sheet loss of £30 million this year and they are proposing to lay off 1,000 workers in the Irish context. In those circumstances is it not obvious that at some time, with Irish Continental Group under pressure — they are projecting a three year loss as a result of the purchase of the m.v. Munster— it will be very tempting for them to operate a cartel. They may decide to operate one ship, the m.v. Felicity and to pool the revenue. There is already, on paper, in B & I proposals from Stena Sealink to that effect.
The Minister has professed an interest in competitive arrangements on the Irish Sea and also in capacity. There is a projection for the year 2001 of about 6 per cent growth per annum in capacity requirements for cargo freight on the Irish Sea. This is of vital importance if we are to meet our growth targets for the foreseeable future. This is a live issue and one which the Minister can be fairly accused of washing his hands of. As Deputy Byrne has said, there is also a vital tourism factor involved here.
Anyone who has undertaken even a cursory examination of shipping on the Irish Sea will know that there has been a phenomenal increase in traffic on the Larne-Stranraer route on the northern corridor. The central corridor is being wiped out because of the more frequent sailings on the northern corridor which is due to the fact that port costs and haulage rates are cheaper in the North. Traffic travels from Kerry and Cork to the North of Ireland, from Larne to Stranraer and back down to the south of England rather than utilising the southern or central corridors. Ports in the North are 100 per cent aided and therefore port costs are cheaper than in the South, with the result that sailings to and from those ports are more frequent. Real pressure will be put on ICG, with particular reference to the profitability of the southern route and the maintenance of those services.
This is not a matter of some internal B & I debate between workers, board members, Alex Spain and management. It is a matter of strategic national interest. The export association, CII and industry sources are so busy dealing with day-to-day matters that they do not think of these dangers. The same argument could be made for European Container Services who provide vital medium haul routes for cargo freight operations from Dublin to Antwerp, Le Havre and Rotterdam. ICG have no commitment beyond the medium term to retain those routes. I agree that this matter should be determined by a vote at 1.30 p.m. It is absolutely essential that the Minister reserve powers on issues such as the growth of the Larne-Stranraer route, the unprofitability of the southern route, the likelihood of a cartel between Sealink and B & I, the loss of traffic on the central corridor and the vital strategic interest for tourism, freight capacity and passenger services. If the company are to be sold the Government should ensure, by order, that there be continuity of shipping services.
I am conscious of the time because it is important that this matter be voted on. The three amendments complement each other and I see no great difference in the motivation behind them. We must emphasise as often as possible the strategic importance of the service to this island. I know the Minister has certain powers in an emergency and he can requisition ships and use them to transport raw materials and so forth for the benefit of the State. Such a power already exists but I would like to draw attention to a different situation. As the two previous speakers have already pointed out, there is a tendency for cartels to cut their losses and run. Speaking as a Member from the "deep south", and not the southern corridor——
——below Rosslare.
——as a Member from the "deep south", where the real Taoiseach comes from, we had major problems in regard to the B & I service out of Cork. I remember distinctly that people felt angry that they had been isolated and left behind when this very good service from Cork ceased. In addition to the commercial service we had a passenger service which was vital to the southern region, and the Munster region suffered dramatically over a long number of years after this service ceased. My fear is that something similar could happen again, say, in Rosslare or somewhere else when the balance sheet shows that the operation is no longer profitable. That is why it is important that the amendments be discussed fully. To a large extent the people living outside Dublin feel they have been forgotten as far as a ferry service is concerned. People from the farthest point in Kerry had to travel to Rosslare before the Cork-Swansea route came into operation. One can therefore understand the difficulties in attracting people to come to this country. It is important that the Minister should have some element of control whereby he can order that the service should not cease and that this new company are bound by a sacrosanct agreement to provide a service.
I wish to comment on ICG's investment of £30 million in the company. The Minister appears to be satisfied that this investment will be forthcoming, but I would like to see this agreement lodged in the Labour Court so that we could ensure it has some standing. As we all know, circumstances may change and difficulties may arise. We have seen changes since the Programme for Economic and Social Progress was negotiated and people have been told they can do nothing about certain changes in the agreement. Something similar may happen with this agreement and ICG could say they could not invest any more money due to factors outside their control. The points raised in our amendments should be written into the record and we should ensure that provisions are written into an agreement that is lodged in the Labour Court so that the workers are protected. What we are trying to achieve in our amendments is to flesh out the bones of the agreement negotiated by the Minister and the trade union officials. I have great confidence that B & I will survive and thrive, but we have no way of controlling the company under new management. My great fear is that someone along the line might decide to pull the plug if it was felt the company was not sufficiently profitable.
I wish to deal with one other point, the crewing of ships. I did not see any reference to crewing arrangements in the agreement negotiated by the Minister and the unions, although he had made it a condition that there would be provision for long term sustainable employment in the B & I. That is a bit vague to my way of thinking. It is just an aspiration to preserve sustainable employment. I would like to see commitments and guarantees that the vessels would sail under the Irish flag and even if the vessel had to be chartered, and this is becoming big business, that Irish staff be employed. The labour cost is one incentive for chartering a vessel and I would not like to see our own people sidelined when staff are hired at a cheaper cost to crew chartered vessels. I do not think that the Opposition Members in this House would like to see B & I going in this direction. I would like the Minister to consider these very important points which would copper-fasten the agreement he has reached with the trade union officials. I hope the Minister accepts the amendments which were tabled in the best interests of both the State and the employees. We feel that if ICG take over a State-controlled company, then certain obligations follow on that. This is where I differ completely with the Minister because I think it is very difficult to try to control a company which is operating on a profit making basis and not just providing a social service. I hope the Minister has some answers to these important questions which will allay our fears.
First, I wish to make sure that I hear Deputy Yates correctly when he says he supports amendment No. 3. This would mean that Fine Gael support the ordering of companies to maintain routes.
No, but that B & I maintain the existing routes.
Amendment No. 3 proposes that we insert the following new section:
"2.—Where the Minister considers it necessary for the public interest, he may make an order requiring the Company to maintain any passenger or cargo service which it operates at the date of the coming into effect of this Act.".
I presume the Deputy would instruct other companies to maintain airline routes?
This is a State company.
I see, it is an interesting philosophy in any case that the Deputy feels that irrespective of the economics of a particular route that the Government would instruct a company to maintain a route——
If the Minister considers it necessary.
I am interested in that philosophy, because the Deputy warned me earlier that things would come back to haunt me, but should the Deputy ever make it over here that particular philosophy of his may come back to haunt him, and no doubt I will be the first to remind him of it.
Deputy Yates asked a question about the Companies Act, and I will take the opportunity to answer it now. There was some suggestion that I caused the company to be in breach of the Companies Act with regard to the publication of their accounts. That is not the case. Under the Companies Act an AGM should be held at the earlier of 15 months after the previous AGM — in the case of B & I this is 25 July 1991 — or within nine months of the year end — and this is 30 September 1991. In relation to the 1990 accounts the company advised the Department on 17 May 1991 that following the due diligence exercise carried out in the company and the general uncertainty, it was decided in consultation with Stokes Kennedy Crowley Corporate Finance and the company's auditors to defer finalisation of the annual report and accounts for 1991 for the time being.
On 14 October 1991 the company wrote to the Department stating that they were now seeking to finalise the 1990 accounts. The board subsequently approved the 1990 accounts at their meeting of 15 November 1991. The report and accounts were presented at the Government meeting of 4 December 1991. It has now been agreed that the annual general meeting of the company will take place on 31 December 1991. That is the position with regard to the query about the Companies Act.
Deputy Byrne spoke about a sale to a private company. I do not want to argue with the Deputy about the definition of a private company, but there are those who would suggest the ICG is a bit more than a private company. It is 70 per cent Irish owned, substantially by institutions and it is the pension funds of some of those institutions that are invested in ICG. There are obviously substantial private interests in ICG, but to the extent that there are pension funds invested in the group it is not completely a private company in the ordinary sense of the definition.
But managers are just as capable of shifting funds.
Yes. ICG is on the Stock Exchange, it is substantially Irish owned and from what I can determine there are substantial pension funds of Irish workers involved in the company. ICG is not made up just of private profiteers, it has the pension funds of Irish workers — for example, Irish Life are a shareholder of ICG. That aspect should be made clear.
That is not the point.
A question was raised about strategic importance and vulnerability. Deputies, we are not going to agree on the matter but I shall put my view on the record. I maintain that Ireland would be much more vulnerable and much less strategic if it did not have B & I, if B & I went into liquidation. All of the evidence that was in front of me at this time last year when the matter was considered carefully illustrated that one of the real options to consider was to close down the company. That option was seriously considered because of the size of the debt involved.
What about the lovely agreement the Government have about keeping all of these things going?
My argument was that however vulnerable Ireland was, it is less vulnerable now by creating two strong shipping companies serving Ireland, Sealink and——
Like Sealink?
It serves the country does it not?
It is a fine company.
There is no doubt about that.
Sealink serves the country, it takes exports and it takes passengers.
Minister, do not encourage them.
My point is that Ireland would be much more vulnerable if I had not taken the action that I did. The company would have had a very bleak future, it could have gone down the same road as Irish Shipping and then we would not have it at all. At least we now have the company and it has some future. The future of the company is now entirely bound up with Irish Sea routes, and I have to say that the position may have been different with the proposal incorporating Danish investors. Irish Ferries and B & I together depend entirely for their sustainability on servicing Ireland, not other countries. Their future is inextricably bound up with the future of the country itself, therefore they cannot simply walk away from any route unless there are major economic difficulties with that route.
I repeat that I take the agreement with the unions very seriously. The Government, my Department and I intend to do everything possible to live up to every word of the agreement. I pointed out that ICG have indicated to me their intention to maintain the company in Irish ownership and have confirmed that their plans for B & I over the next five years include the retention of all existing B & I shipping routes; the provision of extra capacity on the mv Leinster; the sourcing of an improved vessel to replace the mv Munster on the Rosslare-Pembroke route; an upgrading of facilities throughout B & I; the replacement of B & I's container ships; the provision of long term sustainable employment; shared ownership for B & I employees.
What if they change their mind?
I differ from the Deputy in this regard.
What about Belfast-Liverpool.
I differ from the Deputy on this issue and we cannot bridge the gap. I do not believe that public or private companies can be ordered around in regard to economic services. In times of emergency Governments do have the power to do so but I do not believe the philosophy professed by the Deputy, and I do not believe that he believes it seriously. It certainly is not consistent with other approaches taken by the Deputy.
The Department of the Marine believe in it.
When the Deputy asks questions of me at Question Time he seems to take a different approach to the idea of ordering companies to do uneconomic tasks. I am very interested in the Deputy's approach that the Government would simply include in the Bill a section to have a company carry out a specific service, irrespective of whether or not that was economic.
On that score, and there are many precedents in this regard, if the Government want to keep a route open and help their service they do not have to own the company. Deputy Peter Barry in his excellent contribution yesterday gave an example when he pointed out — and Deputy O'Sullivan will know of this — that the Government have loaned money to the Cork-Swansea Ferry Company.
Not only are they going to get it cheaply; they will get gravy to keep it going.
Incidentally, a consultant's report that came to me early last year suggested in no uncertain terms that I should not approve a loan to the Cork-Swansea Ferry Company. In trenchant terms the report indicated that I should not approve the loan. Nevertheless, I decided to suggest to the Government that we would do that, and the Government agreed. It seemed to me that there was so much determination to make the service work that it had a real chance. The Government took that chance, we made the loan available and they have paid back the loan. I take this opportunity to publicly thank everybody associated with the Cork-Swansea Ferry Company for making the service a success against the head and against the advice of consultants. The point I want to make is that the Government do not own the Cork-Swansea Ferry Company.
Does the Minister not want to use consultants? He did with B & I.
The Government take consultants on their merits — unlike Deputy Byrne, who just does not like them at all. I want to point out that the Government do not own the Cork-Swansea Ferry Company. The Government have been able to assist the company strategically with funding at a critical time, based on the company's submissions, and the company have proved their worth, paid off the loan and I salute them.
Another example which comes to mind is that of a ferry serving the Aran Islands, which Deputies know about, which is funded by the State. I think that this year it was funded to the tune of approximately £500,000. The Government do not own the ferry company, it is run by private interests.
There is also a helicopter service to Inishvichillane.
The service receives a fixed sum, it is tendered for regularly and in that way there is competition. The State gets the best value because the service is tendered for, there is no open cheque book. The Government do not own that company but the service works.
I reject the notion that to keep strategic control the Government have to own the shipping company, they do not. The Government can assist it and support it in all kinds of ways but they do not have to own it. That is my response to the query about strategic importance. I believe in keeing the company going and in giving it a real future rather than just sitting back and letting it slide. That is the best way to be less vulnerable.
Deputy O'Sullivan asked about times of emergency. My understanding is that there were substantial reserve powers in times of emergency, and that seems to be the Deputy's understanding also. I am reasonably satisfied about that aspect. Deputy Rabbitte asked me many questions and I am always very careful not to be seen to run away from any questions he puts to me. Yesterday he put 16 questions to me. I have answered all except six of those questions, which questions are by and large to do with this amendment.
I did not answer Question No. 3, in which Deputy Rabbitte asked me why I prevented the annual general meeting from taking place. My response is that that is not true. I am aware that there were delays in finalising the accounts, as I explained, because of uncertainty within the company, but given that the accounts were qualified by the auditors it may have been appropriate to delay finalising the accounts until the company's future was settled.
Who were the auditors?
I have announced in any case that the annual general meeting will now take place on 31 December. I do not have any questions to ask the auditors about their competency. If Deputy Yates does then he should get up on his feet and do so. I am not going to engage in that now.
I am just asking about the auditors and their relationship.
I am not querying the auditor's professional competence in any way.
The next question I have to answer is Question No. 4, asking my why I vetoed the chairman's report for 1990. I have not even discussed with the chairman his report for 1990, let alone vetoed it. I have not yet responded to Deputy Rabbitte's Question No. 11.
This is on thin ice.
The Deputy asked me why my office sought to stop the issue of a letter from the chairman of the company on 9 December to all staff. My response is that that is not the position. My office received a copy of that letter after it had been issued.
Deputy Rabbitte's Question No. 12 read:
Why did he not correct the record of this House of 3 December, at 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?
I am not accusing the Deputy of doing it deliberately but he did wave the Official Report. It would have been fairer to quote what the Taoiseach said in response to him, which was as follows:
Mr. Rabbitte: May I ask the Taoiseach when he proposes to introduce a Bill to deal with the sale of the B & I? I take it that this question is in order?
The Taoiseach: I do not think it will be taken this session.
That was the Taoiseach's response which the Deputy did not quote in the House. Rather, he accused the Taoiseach of misleading the House, although he did not actually say that. I quote again from the same column of the Official Report of 3 December 1991, column 1953, and repeat the Taoiseach's response, which was as follows:
I do not think it will be taken this session.
This is back to the "no such meeting".
Well, that is the point. It was a quite honest response; he said he did not think it would be taken this session.
Does the Minister not sit at the same Cabinet Table as the Taoiseach?
The Taoiseach said he did not think it would be taken this session. The Deputy put it forward in the House here as a definite: it will not be taken, whereas he just said he did not think it would be taken. I am not accusing the Deputy of anything, but it is important to be accurate.
Whereas it was introduced the following morning.
Question No. 14 deals with pensions, with which I will deal in a moment.
Question No. 15 read:
Deputy Rabbitte has referred to the board's concern that there is adequate protection against unacceptable union practices being reintroduced into the B & I under new owners.
This has been raised consistently with me by the chairman of the B & I. The allegation has been refuted by the Irish Continental Group, who have undertaken to fully examine any specific allegtions or suggestions made. So far no evidence has been produced to my Department by the B & I. Again, I would invite such evidence of allegations, when they will be acted on as quickly as possible wherever resources are available to me.
That is my response to all except the question of pensions, Question No. 14, which the Deputy raised with me. In that regard I should say that I wrote to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 1 November 1991. I might quote what 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.
I want to say that the sale of the B & I to ICG is absolutely fully consistent with that commitment.
Those were the 15 questions to which I have responded. Obviously, the Deputy will be critical of some aspects of my response but I have responded as best as I could.
I was asked a question by Deputy Yates about the southern corridor. I want to tell him that the managment and board of the B & I — this is important information for the Deputy — wished to cease service on this route and do a deal with Sealink in the matter. It is important that the Deputy understands that.
I said that.
I know that. They added that Irish Continental Ferries have offered to continue this service. While I cannot absolutely hold them to that suggestion, the management/staff buy-out indicated that they would seek a joint venture with Sealink on the matter. It is important to point that out to the Deputy.
Deputy Byrne appeared very critical of the ICG role in making money, contending that they wished to make money. I do not have a problem with that.
The Minister will have a problem if they lose money and do not provide a service.
I just wonder why, when the Deputy talks about the profits of the B & I, he contends that is terrific, it is great. But when he refers to profits being made by the Irish Continental Group, with substantial pension fund investment, he contends it is not so good, that it is a ripoff.
We are taking about a strategic interest.
I know. Can the Deputy not admit one thing, that whether a company is public or private it needs profits. That is it.
Agreed.
Grand, that is all I wanted to get from the Deputy. It does not matter who owns a company, it needs to make money. Taxation policy can deal with surpluses and the like. But the notion that if a company is private it should not make money and, if public, it should is patently silly.
I think I have dealt with virtually all of the matters raised. I want to repeat that I place great credence in our understanding with the trade union movement and with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I do not treat it lightly. I am aware, and freely admit, that some of it is aspirational. It is aspirational because I cannot control what will take place in the shipping markets of the world. Therefore, some of it is aspirational; but it is a firm declaration of my intension and that of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and of the B & I group of unions to make it work.
Deputy Byrne mentioned the chief executive of the B & I, Mr. Jim Kennedy, on one or two occasions. I should like to join Deputy Byrne in expressing my thanks to him for his excellent work and leadership. Certainly, the B & I Line were very fortunate to have had a man of his calibre. I support that thinking.
I might say in passing that the excesses of the Minister's co-operation took him a little beyond the amendment. I am hoping we will not have responses to anything other than that contained in the amendment being discussed.
As always, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I shall endeavour to observe your strictures.
I might comment that it is very hurtful for us Deputies over here, who have stayed with this Bill so assiduously, never to get a pat on the head; whereas when Deputy Peter Barry walks into the House, makes some little point that the Minister happens to agree with, he is praised and all the rest of it. It is very hurtful and plays hell with one's morale.
We will make up for it.
I think Deputy Rabbitte can take it that he has not been taken for granted by anybody.
I suppose it would be inconsiderate of us to put this matter to a vote during the sos when people are lunching——
I think we should.
—— but I am indicating our intention to put it to a vote. I want to indicate our disappointment that the Minister has not really addressed the key point of the amendment at all. There really is no arguing with the Minister, who says that strategically we are a great deal less vulnerable now than had we liquidated the company. There is no answer to that kind of logic. The Minister is inescapably correct — if we liquidated the company we would indeed be more vulnerable. But I did not hear anybody argue for the liquidation of the company. Therefore it is a non-argument; that was never the issue.
It is also wrong of the Minister to take up Deputy Yates on his seeking to have enshrined in legislation the capacity to order a private company to do this or that — in this instance to retain a route the Minister would consider strategically important to the country's trading and other interests. This is an exceptional measure. We are not suggesting it is something that would be lightly used. The strategic arguments have been outlined by other Members, who have spoken in terms of this country's dependence on trade in particular, but there is also a tourism and passenger dimension to it. The amendment says: "Where the Minister considers it is necessary for the public interest ... " The Minister of the day will make a judgment on that, whether the termination of a particular route is as important to the country's vital interests that in those circumstances he should intervene. I cannot see how the Minister can accuse Deputy Yates of applying that as a general policy approach to any private company. As I understand it, that is not what is being said at all. Of course, what it extracted from the Minister in terms of what is his philosophy is very illuminating. Not only are we going to sell this company for a song, but if they should come under pressure on any given route what will we do? We will give them a subsidy. That is what the Minister said.
Bail them out, boys. That would put the share price up through the roof.
That is what he said.
That is an option.
That is what the Minister said. There is no other point at issue. It is an option. That is what the Minister meant and what he said. That is the pat on the head for Deputy Peter Barry for defending his corner and so on. That is what it means. This has emanated from this private marketeer who seeks to attack Deputy Byrne for suggesting something he did not suggest, which was that private companies should not make a profit. He never said that.
What happens if, as Deputy Yates says, we have a recurrence of the Belfast/Liverpool termination, for example, purely for the commercial interests of the company? Suppose that conflicts directly with our strategic interests as a trading nation? Then it appears to me that, in circumstances in which the Minister has refused to even contemplate the suggestion of the golden share or any other mechanism to dictate the national interest, it would appear to me that this amendment is not only reasonable but necessary. For the Minister to discuss an amendment designed to meet exceptional circumstances, having regard to the extent to which we depend on sea routes for our wealth as a trading nation, would appear to me to dismiss it out of hand altogether too easily. On the questions that he chose the opportunity to reply to now, vis-à-vis the annual general meeting——
I must interrupt the Deputy and, according to the order of the House, ask him to agree to report progress,
That way we will lose 15 minutes. May I ask that the question be put?
No, it has gone past 1.30 p.m. that is not possible.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.