B & I Line Bill, 1990 [ Certified Money Bill]: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. S. Brennan)

The Government has decided to provide B & I Line with up to £6 million in Exchequer equity in 1990. Section 1 of this Bill enables the Minister for Finance to give effect to the Government decision by increasing from 100 million to 106 million the number of ordinary shares of £1 each which the Minister may purchase in the company.

It is two years since this House has had an opportunity to discuss comprehensively the affairs of B & I Line. In 1988, the company was dealing with a major financial crisis. A short time earlier a plan of action had been adopted by the board of B & I which provided for a major restructuring of company operations. It involved reducing the workforce by 565 from 1,464 to 899, as well as implementing a pay cut of 5 per cent and a pay freeze until July 1989. The Dublin/Liverpool car ferry service was terminated and the m.v. Connacht and all North Wall properties were sold. In addition, a major consolidated loan agreement was put in place with the banks on repayment of B & I's borrowings subject to a mortgage on the company's assets.

I am glad to report to the House that the completion of this difficult restructuring phase has improved the company's trading performance over the past two years. In both 1988 and 1989, B & I has returned operating profits of £1.8 million and £2.8 million respectively. Corporate interest charges exceeding £4 million in both years, however, have resulted in net losses being incurred of £2.9 million in 1988 and £1.5 million in 1989. It is worth noting in that regard that, were it not for the burden of interest charges on historic debt arising from losses accumulated by B & I prior to 1988, the company would at this stage be recording net profits. The burden of debt, however, is a commercial reality with which, obviously, the company has to continue to cope.

In parallel with these financial improvements B & I has increased its business in the car, roll-on/roll-off and lift-on/lift-off areas. In each case B & I carryings grew significantly between 1987 and 1989 and further increases are projected for 1990. These improved results have no doubt been assisted by the general economic upturn in trade and tourism which this Government has stimulated. It is also proper to acknowledge, however, the commitment which management and staff in B & I have jointly shown in the restructuring of the company over the past two years. The across the board support of the workforce was an essential prerequisite of Government assistance for the company at the beginning of 1988 and that continues to be the case.

It is appropriate at this point to recall that B & I's plan of action, initiated in 1988, envisages Government equity investment of £7 million in B & I over the two years of 1988 and 1989. In fact, the Exchequer was called on to invest only £1 million in the company over that period, or £6 million less than originally expected. Notwithstanding these encouraging trends, I have to stress that the company is clearly not out of the woods yet and remains reliant on Government financial support. It also faces a difficult trading environment, not only as a result of increasing competition from other shipping operators, but also as a result of continuing airline competition for passenger traffic through lower air fares. I ought to say, however, that the ferry operators have responded well to the competition from airlines through a combination of innovative marketing of package holidays and greater concentration on car traffic.

B & I's total outstanding capital obligations at the end of 1989 amounted to £37.3 million. The company is scheduled to discharge almost all of these current obligations by the end of 1995. Annual capital and interest payments, however, continue to be a major burden and will amount to over £8 million per annum over each of the next few years. This takes no account of any additional borrowing which may be incurred in the meantime.

The decision of the Government to initiate this Bill and invest up to £6 million in the company this year is a positive response to the progress achieved over the past two years. Nevertheless, it is vital for the company's own future that it continue on this path of progress during 1990 and beyond. In that context it must be made clear that the company cannot rely indefinitely on Government support. B & I must prove itself capable of continuing its financial improvement and of competing effectively in the marketplace on a continuing basis.

I already announced in Dáil Éireann last week my intentions to initiate a review of the future trading and development prospects of the B & I Line. I believe this review to be timely given the company's improved performance over the past two years. In addition, as we move towards the challenges and opportunities of the Single European Market, it is necessary for the Government to assess how best the needs of our exporters can be met and, in particular, the role of B & I in that context. The main objective of this review will be to determine how soon B & I's dependence on Exchequer financial support can be ended, the development options for the company over the coming years, the associated costs of these options and B & I's ability to fund such developments from within its own resources. I must stress that I am not looking at any particular option at the present time. I will choose the best option in due course, depending on the outcome of the review.

As I indicated last week, I did receive an unsolicited expression of interest in B & I from a privately owned ferry company late last year. I have set that expression of interest aside for the time being, pending the outcome of my review of the company. I am expecting B & I to let me have their own views on the future options for the company shortly.

In trading terms, the dominant access mode continues to be sea transport, accounting for over 80 per cent of total merchandise trade by volume and 50 per cent of passenger movements. Ireland's dependence on reliable and frequent shipping services is accordingly very high. Clearly, this consideration will have to be taken into account by the Government in its deliberations on B & I's future role in our economy.

Having dealt in some detail with the recent history and future prospects from the B & I Line, it is appropriate that I acquaint Senators with the number of other ongoing developments of relevance to the trading environment of the company. Seanad Éireann will already be aware of the thrust of the National Development Plan and the importance which this Government attaches to improving competitiveness throughout the Irish economy. Leaving aside for the moment the additional trading problems which arise for us due to our geographical position vis-á-vis our European trading partners, it is accepted that the future requirements of Irish industry demand increased investment in transport infrastructure, particularly in shipping services and associated port, rail and road access facilities. Together with transit delays and poor delivery times, the significant diversion of freight traffic through Northern Ireland ports is a symptom of our existing inadequacies in this area. The National Development Plan has already pointed out that transport costs for Irish exporters account for between 9 per cent and 10 per cent of export sales values, which is effectively double that borne by Community countries trading with one another on the European mainland.

It is obvious, therefore, that the future performance of Irish trade and tourism, as well as Irish shipping services, will depend to a large extent on existing infrastructural inadequacies being remedied. This was recognised in the National Development Plan and also in the more recent decision of the European Commission to make available, through the Community support framework for Ireland, EC funding designed to offset the effects of Ireland's peripherality in the Community. The Commission has indicated that investments in roads, ports, airports and railways will qualify for EC assistance to the extent that they contribute to reducing the effects of peripherality. My Department, in conjunction with other relevant Departments, is preparing a number of investment proposals for consideration by the EC Commission in the context of the operational programme for roads and other transport infrastructure. I am hopeful that negotiations on this integrated programme will be finalised before the summer. The programme, when implemented, will significantly improve the overall transport network of this country and thereby help to alleviate the cost disadvantages we currently suffer in moving our goods to our main export markets.

I announced some weeks ago that I had commissioned a consultancy study from Stokes Kennedy Crowley, one of the main objects of which is to recommend and evaluate possible investment strategies appropriate to the development of better sea freight services to our major Community trading partners. This study, which should be available to me within two months, is being steered by a committee representative of the Departments of Tourism and Transport, Finance and the Marine, as well as the European Commission. The study will also examine organisational factors in the Irish transport sector which affect the competitive position of Irish exporters vis-á-vis our European trading partners. Recommendations arising from the consultancy study will be given careful consideration with a view to improving Ireland's freight links with our Community partners.

The advent of the Single European Market poses major challenges as well as opportunities for Ireland and calls for a fresh appraisal of how the disadvantages of our peripherality can be eliminated or at least alleviated. It is self-evident that this requires a coherent investment strategy in transport infrastructure and services. The Government's primary objective in that regard is to focus the State's and the European Community's investment resources in a manner which will maximise the benefits to Ireland's trading and tourism industries and thereby help to harness the full potential of our economy.

I have dealt in my preceding comments with the future environment within which shipping services will operate. The Bill before the House today has, of course, a much more short term focus. Its sole purpose is to provide B & I with up to £6 million to assist the company in meeting its scheduled financial commitments during 1990. Before I conclude, I would like to stress one point in particular. B & I cannot hope to realise its full development potential until such time as it becomes commercially self-sufficient. While recognising the company's efforts over the past two years — which have been very good — in tackling its financial problems, the Government remains anxious that B & I's reliance on Exchequer financial support should be ended at the earliest possible time. This issue will be a primary focus in examining the future options for the company.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Mooney

In welcoming the Minister, I also welcome the Bill and the ideas which he has articulated in relation to the future development of B & I. Obviously, the injection of money is coming at a critical time in the development of the B & I Line. I am particularly pleased that it has so far been welcomed by all shades of opinion, particularly those who are involved in the export of goods outside this country. However, it does give me an opportunity, however briefly, to highlight and perhaps propose certain points to the Minister in relation to the overall strategy that seems to be adopted by not only B & I but by the other major ferry operator on the Irish Sea, Sealink.

I would like to draw the Minister's attention, wearing his other hat as Minister for Tourism, to the potentially damaging publicity which has been highlighted in a number of UK publications, especially the major quality English newspaper The Independent of Saturday, 3 February, followed up by an article at the end of February, which, under the heading “The world's dearest stretch of water”, underlines the difficulties which the ferry operators are facing from a somewhat critical and highly suspicious public, who over the previous decade have not been at all satisfied with the standard of service or the price that has been charged for access to and from Ireland. At a time when we in Ireland are attempting to attract the highest possible number of tourists to this country publicity of this nature is highly damaging. I would hope that the Minister would take steps to minimise the potential damage to our tourist industry, especially among the British holidaymaker, who has traditionally been the bulwark of our tourism success over the last 30 years.

I talk here about the British holidaymaker as distinct from the ethnic holidaymaker. The article itself makes weary reading. Admittedly, there have been a great deal of improvements to the B & I service, but it seems to me that one cannot ignore representations that have been made on a continuing basis by such organisations as the Federation of Irish Societies in a report, admittedly in the early 1980s. The Irish Post newspaper, the voice of the Irish in Britain, has continually highlighted the inadequacies of the service for Irish people. They refer especially to what they call “the chaos” at the ports at high peak times. I was surprised to learn that the Department of Transport has been quoted as saying that they find the service satisfactory. I would like to think, especially with such a high powered and able Minister as Minister Brennan, that he would never find anything in his Department or any aspect of his Department totally satisfactory since he is someone who always strives higher and higher for an excellence in service.

It seems also to me from the various comments that have been made by those involved in tourism and industry in this country that more investment is needed. In that regard I welcome the comments the Minister has made in his speech where he talks in terms of his intention to review the future trading and development prospects of the B & I Line. I might at this juncture also echo the Minister's remarks about the turnaround in the fortunes of B & I. I, too, welcome the improved results and agree that they have been assisted by the general economic upturn in trade and tourism which this Government have stimulated since coming into office.

Of course, it would be remiss of me also not to pay a particular tribute to the commitment shown by the management and staff in B & I, who have been going through an extremely difficult time over the last few years with the shedding of jobs and general rationalisation. The fact that they have come out of that particular trauma in a healthier state than they went in is obviously a tribute to their own commitment to maintaining and developing ferry services, both for the tourist sector and the industrial sector.

In relation to the review which the Minister has initiated, it is interesting that he makes the comment that he will choose the best option in due course. Obviously, there has been a great deal of comment, both inside and outside the House, since this Bill was circulated as to the possible intentions of the Minister. I sometimes feel that politicians tend to read more into comments made by Ministers in their introduction of a Bill than is really true. It does not seem to me that the Minister is in any way suggesting that by injecting £6 million into B & I at this time he is setting them up for privatisation. However, I would like to think, in reading the Minister's mind on this, that he is obviously going to go for the option that is in the best interests of the country. I doubt very much whether he is the sort of person who would be prepared to sell off a valuable State asset. The long-term future of B & I is bound up in some way with State involvement. Perhaps the Minister, in the new climate of liberalisation as distinct from privatisation, might be considering share ownership by the Irish people. Share ownership has proved to be extremely popular and very successful with our nearest neighbours in the United Kingdom. It has broadened the share ownership in the general population. People who never bought shares before have purchased shares in former State owned companies. Perhaps there is a halfway house here where the Minister may, in pursuing the best option available, consider making a portion of the equity of B & I available for public share ownership.

I mention this because I believe, as the Minister has pointed out on a number of occasions that ferry transport, both private, tourist and industrial, is crucial to the future wellbeing of this country. We are alone in Europe in having a higher emphasis on ferry and sea transport than any of our European neighbours. Perhaps in a sense this is a disadvantage, because it means that our Minister and Government have got to fight harder to convince the other 11 that there should be a higher priority given to sea services, whereas the emphasis seems to be in recent years towards the liberalisation and an emphasis on the air transport infrastructure throughout Europe which, in itself, has also benefitted this country. I know the Minister has taken a keen interest in liberalisation policy within the EC. Because of our uniqueness in this area obviously we must continue to be vigilant to ensure that the European Commission and our European partners do not downgrade what is for us — perhaps not for them — vital to the future prosperity of this country.

The Minister refers in his speech to Ireland's dependence on reliable and frequent shipping services. It is extremely high because the dominant access mode continues to be sea transport accounting for over 80 per cent of total merchandise trade by volume and 50 per cent of passenger movement. The Minister goes on to say — and again I welcome his comments — that it is accepted that the future requirements of Irish industry demand increased investment in transport infrastructure particularly in shipping services and associated port, rail and road access facilities. The Minister talks about the significant diversion of freight traffic through Northern Ireland ports. It is a symptom of our existing inadequacies in this area.

Here I would like to draw the House's attention to a report of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce recently headed "Corridor to Competitiveness", subheaded "Developing Ireland's Primary Sea Route to the Internal Market." This is an excellent document and the chamber of commerce are to be complimented on having taken the time and resources obviously necessary to produce the document as a useful contribution to the ongoing debate about our developing sea ferry services.

I would like to put onto the record of the House one or two of the recommendations which the chamber of commerce puts forward in order to improve our viability and our competitiveness, particularly in the industrial area. They say that the designation by the Government of the central corridor, Dublin to Holyhead, as the primary Irish export route to the United Kingdom, is vitally important as is the creation of a supranational task force involving Irish, British and EC experts which will plan and coordinate a comprehensive programme for the corridor and a programme that would include improved access to Dublin and Holyhead ports, better port facilities at Dublin and Holyhead, lower port charges, increased shipping capacities at peak hours by introducing larger ferries, lower shipping charges, harmonisation of tax burdens on hauliers on both sides of the Border, even-handed customs procedures at sea and land frontiers and a marketing programme to sell those improvements and win back traffic. It seems that the diversion of trade out of the Republic of Ireland is so high that it has implications for the national economy. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce indicate that from their survey the loss of revenue to the economy amounts to approximately £56 million a year.

In relation to the service — here I would like to respectfully suggest to the Minister that it is an area that should be looked at — the Minister says that the northern corridor is an area where we are losing out. Among the reasons for this is that there is an advantage on their side because they have more frequent sailings. They have more capacity. They have faster access to the ports, speedier unloading unhampered by port customs formalities, and a record of reliability. They clarify — it is rather interesting for the House to note this in relation to the frequent sailings — that the northern corridor has 24 sailings a day against the central corridor — the Dublin/Holyhead route in which B & I operate which has only eight. Larne alone has 16. Of the central corridor — again Dublin/ Holyhead — delays of 12 hours are normal if a sailing is missed. I do not believe in this day and age, and particularly going into the nineties, that anyone, whether an industrial exporter or a tourist, should be subjected to the vagaries of this type of service. I know that the Minister is constantly looking at ways of improving access in and out of this country, wearing both his hats as Tourism and Transport Minister.

The reference to road access is of particular interest to me, especially the road access out of Holyhead. Indeed, in making a decision to spend a few days with relatives in England later on around the Easter recess, my wife and I have chosen the southern corridor route, mainly because our relatives live in the Sussex area of England, but also because of the severe frustration that we experienced on a number of occasions going through the central corridor — Dublin/Holyhead and not just because of any inadequacies that may have arisen on the B & I service. Here I must confess that my personal experience of B & I has been nothing but good. There are delays in getting to the trunk roads and the motorways of England. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce report refers to poor access to Holyhead possing problems for shippers. The narrow winding A5 road through the mountains from Shrewsbury is not suitable for heavy traffic. I might add that it is not suitable for even small traffic, either. Anybody who has the experience of getting behind a container or a van on that particular route can say goodbye to any time schedules they may have had.

I know that the Minister has had ongoing discussions with the local council representatives in North Wales and, indeed, with his British Transport opposite number. I am glad to note that the upgrading of the dual carriageway status of the A55 and A5 has been achieved at a cost to the British Government of £500 million, and also that the Government in Britain have decided that the remaining part of the route, from Llangefni to the port of Holyhead, which is a distance of 14 miles, is to be improved to dual carriageway status. The completion of the dual way to Holyhead port will obviously greatly enhance accessibility to the port.

I also understand from the Chamber of Commerce report — perhaps the Minister will have some up-to-date news on this — that the Government intend to upgrade the rail line to Holyhead from its present 70 mph to 90 mph. However, I am disappointed to have learned from other sources that the Government in Britain have no plans to electify this route in order to make it even faster.

Before I conclude, I would like to briefly refer to an address made by Mr. Tom Jago, Chairman, Transport Policy Committee of the Confederation of Irish Industry and Managing Director of Irish Fertilisers Industries Limited, to the annual conference of the CII on 23 February, 1990 under the heading "Transport Links". Again, he emphasies the vital importance of the link out of this country. He says 75 per cent of our total industrial output is exported, 80 per cent of which finds its way to the rest of the EC. Therefore, an astonishingly high 60 per cent of our total industrial output must be transported by either sea or air.

The number of passengers in 1989 reached the staggering total of 9.4 million. The most interesting feature of these figures, according to Mr. Jago, is not the scale but the rate at which they are increasing. The 9.4 million figure for 1989 represented an increase of 14 per cent on the previous year. It is also interesting to note, says Mr. Jago, that two-thirds travel by air and that 93 per cent of all of these passengers travel between Ireland and the rest of Europe. He refers to the transport chain and says that it is essential that those responsible for our transport infrastructure realise that all of the elements of that infrastructure are inextricably linked. For instance, providing the proper types of ships will serve little purpose if the sea ports are not fully equipped to effectively deal with the cargoes or passengers from these ships. Likewise, linked to the sea ports the road and rail system must be designed to cater for exactly the same volume of traffic with equal effectiveness.

I do not wish to delay the House, but I considered it important to make those points, and to emphasise points which have already been brought up. I am sure very little of this comes as news to the Minister, who has taken a keen interest in the developing of our air, rail and sea links. However, it seems to me that at the end of the day what we are really talking about here is money and more money. It is in that context that I want to conclude my remaks by once again emphasising that it is vitally important that not only the Government but all those who are involved in discussions with our European partners in the transport and industrial exporting area, should continue to hammer home the point that Ireland is unique. We are and after 1992 with the opening of the Channel Tunnel, we will be the only member state of the European Community that will not have a fixed land link with another member state.

The implications of this for Ireland cannot be overstated. While most of the emphasis in relation to 1992 and beyond has been on tax harmonisation, whether cars will be cheaper or consumer goods will be cheaper, I believe there has not been sufficient, adequate and enough serious debate on the implications for Ireland post-1992, specifically in relation to transport policy. From the Minister's remarks in the context of this Bill a start obviously has been made. I hope the Government's commitment to ensuring that our infrastructure will continue to be developed at a fast rate will result in a more competitive service, a more frequent service and a service which can only benefit in the longer term and help to enhance the prosperity of this country.

I, too, commend the Bill to the House.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. S. Brennan)

I wish to thank Senator Mooney for his very well researched address to the Seanad and for his helpful comments. In proposing that the Seanad accept the Second Stage of the Bill, I say that this is an island nation and for an island nation not to fully develop its air and sea links in a comprehensive integrated fashion would be a major mistake. Our air and sea routes are our roads to our export markets and they are our roads for our tourists. We never miss an opportunity at EC level to impress upon our EC colleagues the philosophy of the Irish Government which is the critical nature of being able to get on and off the island of Ireland of being able to bring goods and tourists in and out of the country efficiently, effectively and safely. That is our transport policy and we never lose an opportunity to explain it.

As regards the EC transport programme, we hope to be able to announce substantial transport investment from the EC Structural Fund in the next few weeks. That is being finalised in co-operation with the Department of the Environment. I hope we will be able to announce that operational programme in a matter of weeks. This will entail substantial further investment in our transport infrastructure. I will not say any more about that at this stage but will come back to it when we are ready to make that announcement.

I want to thank Senator Mooney and join with him in saluting the staff and management of the B & I. It is a company that is strongly led. It is a company whose staff have taken a battering, to put it politely. They have take a wage cut, a wage freeze and seen their staff eroded from 1,400 to 800-odd. I cannot think of many companies, public or private, that can take that kind of medicine and still be optimistic. The company are optimistic and they are turning themselves around and they have my support. I join with the Seanad in conveying my appreciation to the staff, management and the board of the company.

It is the Government's intention that the B & I company will not require State funding as soon as possible. It is aimed to see an end to State subvention of B & I as soon as that is possible and that it become commercially self-reliant. That is not the same thing as privatisation. In regard to the Senators' comments in that area, that there are a number of options for the company, options which have to be assessed very carefully and I am looking closely at what those options are. In particular, I am waiting to hear formally what the B & I board see as their future options. I expect to hear from them very shortly indeed.

One of those options is that the company would no longer be in State control. Another option is that the State would continue in some way to be involved. Let us be clear about it, I believe the company would be the first to acknowledge this: over a ten year period we have invested, in terms of taxpayers' money, something of the order of £70 million in the company. It is quite clear that that cannot and will not continue. We have to find another route. I want to assure the workforce, the management and the board that the Government will take no decision without having full and frank consultations with the people who have borne the brunt of the difficulties and who, through their courage and determination, have turned the company around and have effectively saved it, but there is a long way to go. It is not my intention to come here every year asking for funding for this State company. We have to find another direction.

The Holyhead-London road is a major artery for Irish exports and for Irish trade. That road, ironically, I would argue, is more important to Ireland than many Irish roads because it is our artery and it is critical for the future development of tourism and exports. The British Government are aware of the Irish Government's full support for their efforts to upgrade that road. I am told quite a stretch of it is now up to dual carriageway standard and some of it is up to motorway standard. The intention is that all of it will be upgraded. I have just told the Dáil that within a matter of days I will be formally writing to the British Transport Minister assuring him of Irish support during our EC Presidency to support any proposals they may put forward to upgrade that road further, and not just stopping at London.

The Senator referred to the opening of the Channel Tunnel. It is critical that we can get our exports quickly and easily from Holyhead to the tunnel and on to export markets on the Continent. I want to again assure the British Government that their efforts to upgrade that road will have our fullest support, particularly during our Presidency but also long afterwards.

The Senator is probably also aware that I recently announced grant aid for the Cork-Swansea Ferry Company. I want to say quite clearly again today in the Seanad, now that I have an opportunity, that there have been inaccurate comments that this is a once off support for the Cork-Swansea Ferry. It is an act of faith by me and the Government in the people of Cork, Kerry and the southern region. I have already told the Seanad that the consultants' report advised me not to grant aid this company; the most independent, financial and economic advice I received suggested the Government should not support the ferry. Nevertheless, I decided against that advice on the basis of commitments from the people of Cork and Kerry that they would support the ferry and make it work. I am prepared to put my faith in the business people of that region that they will make it work. I again say to them today, make it work and it will survive. The future of the Cork-Swansea Ferry Company depends not on the Government but on the support they receive from the people of the Cork-Kerry area. That should be crystal clear so that there will be no misunderstanding next year when we look at the results. I believe my confidence is well placed. Time will tell.

The Senator also mentioned briefly the question of tourism. I would like to thank him and salute him for his long standing interest and support for the tourist industry. It is just starting now on the brink of its most exciting phase in that over the next four years, between public sector investment, private sector investment and EC Structural Funding some £600 million will go into the tourist industry in infrastructure. That includes business expansion scheme money, for example. If you take that £600 million over a four year period it is more than was invested in the tourist industry in the past 25 years taken together. In a matter now of a week or so I will be in a position to announce the very first of those grants and supports from the EC to the tourist industry.

I believe in properly invested moneys as opposed merely to spending. It is my intention that we do not spend the money in that sense but that we invest it for future generations. If we invest it properly it will change the face of Irish tourism in that we will then be able to offer the products which are offered internationally. There is a myth in regard to tourism which I am keen to dispel, that is that it is based on people wanting to come to Ireland because they wish to meet nice people and see nice scenery.

My experience from research shows that that is part of it, that it comes from a traditional reputation we have but my research shows also that our target to double tourism in four years is proving difficult. We have the targets to date but the next two years will be very difficult indeed. Only by investing in the product and giving people something to do in Ireland when they come here will we be able to attract future tourists.

Tourism is like any other business. It is extremely competitive. The more you travel the more you realise the wide choice of locations people have in regard to motorways. They can travel to many different countries and have excellent facilities. Ireland simply has to compete with those other destinations if it wants to get tourism. It can not rely on the nice image which has taken us this far but which in my view provides us with only a limited capacity to develop the industry. Therefore, we must invest this £600 million of EC money and private money — business expansion scheme money — properly and sensibly.

People want to know the answer to one question in regard to Irish tourism, that is apart from the access costs, which we have been dealing with, what do they do when they get here. What activities can they take part in, what are the indoor facilities, what facilities of international standards have we to offer. We need to be able to answer that question by saying here is the list, here are the items and here are the facilities. My intention is to provide those facilities over the next few years.

I would like to thank the Seanad for their consideration of the Bill on Second Stage, I commend it to the House. I will be asking the Seanad, perhaps in a few moments, to give me all stages of the Bill this afternoon.