asked the Minister for Communications if he will make a statement on the current position regarding the MV Irish Spruce at Marseilles; if he will say if the vessel is under arrest; and if it is intended to sell it off.
27.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - MV Irish Spruce.
5.
asked the Minister for Communications the cost to date of the maintenance of the Irish Spruce at Marseilles.
I propose to take questions Nos. 5 and 27 together. The Irish Spruce was never owned by Irish Shipping Limited; it was leased by the company from the owners, Jura Shipping Limited, and lease payments were guaranteed by the Minister for Finance.
The present position is that action has been taken in the Hong Kong and Marseilles courts by the holders of the ship's mortgage, Orient Leasing, on behalf of the financing syndicate, against Jura Shipping Limited. These proceedings have resulted in a court judgment awarded to Orient Leasing. I understand that this judgment will shortly lead to an arrest of the vessel, following which the vessel will be sold through the French courts. The Minister for Finance will in due course discharge the liabilities arising from the guarantees he gave of the lease of the vessel to Irish Shipping Limited.
I understand that the Irish crew of the vessel will be repatriated very shortly. The cost of the care and maintenance of the Irish Spruce while it has been berthed at Marseilles has been approximately £30,000 per week.
Deputy Mac Giolla.
Will the Minister say——
It is my priority question.
I realise that. I am calling Deputies in the order set out on the Order Paper. I will call Deputy Wilson next and I will give him ample time.
What does the word "priority" mean?
It means that the question will be taken today. It means that if the question is not reached by 3.30 p.m. it will be taken as of right between that time and 3.45 p.m.
I also had questions on the Irish Spruce refused. This is what puzzles me.
The Minister gave a figure of £30,000 but last November a figure of £34,000 per week was given. I take it that is still correct?
It is the approximate cost. Exchange rates affect the cost.
I understood the Minister to say that it is expected that the vessel will be arrested shortly. Is that correct?
Yes.
Does the Minister mean by that remark that the vessel has not been under arrest up to now?
There has been a number of arrests on the ship since liquidation and as each one arose it has been dealt with. The position is that the owners of the ship now have orders from the Marseilles and Hong Kong High Courts to take over the ship for the purpose of sale. I understand that is now progressing.
If the ship has not been under continuous arrest since November 1984, why was it not brought to its home port rather than left in Marseilles?
The Deputy does not seem to understand that we do not own this ship and never owned it.
I understood it was leased.
It is not owned by us. Incidentally, I have gone to the trouble of finding out that information and have given it out of courtesy to the House. I am no longer responsible for this as it is now in the hands of the liquidator and the creditors. I am giving the House the information it has been possible to get. We do not own the ship. In relation to the matter of a home port, I wish to point out that there is no home port. There is only one estuary in Ireland to which the ship could have gone in any event——
The Minister is engaging in semantics when he talks about a home port. I am talking about the port that is home for the crew members who have been left out there for this time. I want to clarify from the Minister when the lease ceased. Is it still under lease to the liquidator of Irish Shipping? What has he done to endeavour to bring the ship home or to encourage the liquidator to allow the crew to bring the ship home and to deal with the matter from a port in Ireland, whether it be called a home port or anything else? Why was that not done?
I wish to repeat for the information of the House that the ship was not ours in the first place.
It was under lease.
Were not the crew Irish people?
Under the terms of the original lease, in the event of liquidation all bets were off. This is what happened and the ship reverted to the full ownership and control of the owners. Because that happened in the circumstances of liquidation and because there are quite a number of creditors of Irish Shipping who could slap summonses or arrest the ship time and time again at any port to which it might travel there was no sense in moving the ship, even if it could have been moved from Marseilles.
If the Minister was a member of the crew would he not see sense in bringing it home to Ireland?
The crew probably know more about merchant shipping law than Deputy Mac Giolla. If there had been any attempt to move the ship it is almost certain there would have been further arrests. Even if the ship could have been moved there would have been further arrests at the next port. That is one of the great difficulties with regard to the Irish fleet and why the present course is now being pursued.
Is it not a fact that Jura Shipping was a company of Irish Shipping?
No.
It was a company of Irish Shipping established in order to get a lease from the owners. Consequently there must be some hold on the ship from the point of view of the Irish taxpayers. In pursuit of what Deputy Mac Giolla said, I should like to know why the Irish Spruce could not have sailed out of Marseilles since there has been a reported French legal opinion that it could have done so without let or hindrance.
I am not responsible for impressions or reports. I just want to tell the Deputy and the House that the interests of Ireland, and as far as possible the crew, have been uppermost in our minds when dealing with this matter. The least disadvantageous course had been pursued. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Irish Spruce has not been able to remain in the Irish fleet. However, this was outside our hands. The matter has been decided by the courts in Hong Kong and Marseilles and the ship will be sold under orders of those courts.
The Minister stated that the Minister for Finance would discharge his responsibilities or his liabilities in respect of the ship. How much?
Deputy Wilson should be more familiar with this than I am because much of the detail of this matter was worked out during his term of office.
It was not.
In his time and before that—in other words, before my time.
The Minister for Finance did not come into it at all until comparatively recently. What are the liabilities the Minister for Finance has in regard to the Irish Spruce as mentioned in the Minister's reply?
There is another question on that matter but I can answer the Deputy now. The Irish Shipping liability for the Irish Spruce was approximately a quarter, which amounts to about £9 million. That is the additional liability in respect of the Irish Spruce which the Minister for Finance will have to discharge.
Is the Minister saying that the Minister for Finance will have discharged fully his responsibilities in the next few days, if the procedure outlined takes place, by the payment of £9 million?
The discharging of the liabilities of Irish Shipping is not a matter for me and I suggest the Deputy should table his question to the Minister for Finance.
Question No. 6.
As you know, I have tabled this as a priority question.
I appreciate that.
It is very important since we have 23 citizens in Marseilles digging in to try to get their rights, which they thought were guaranteed by the Irish Government. Does the Minister think he has any responsibility to those 23 members of the crew of the Irish Spruce, seeing that the owner company, the leasing company and the liquidator seem to have abjured their responsibility in the matter?
It is not for me to defend the people who have just been attacked by Deputy Wilson. As I understand it, the liquidator has met his obligations fully and is prepared to do so. I do not see any problem about that. Since the liquidation I have very little responsibility specifically in relation to Irish Shipping, of a legal nature at any rate. Under general merchant shipping law I do have a certain function in the event, for instance, of sailors being stranded abroad but, contrary to repeatedly mistaken press reports, that has never happened. There is adequate provision in law to deal with the situation.
All the crews concerned were taken home quite promptly and looked after very well. In this case there has been a change over of crew every so often since the liquidation. The full wages, salaries and allowances have been paid to the crews of the Irish Spruce. They have had home leave and they will be repatriated to the State by the liquidator. Should that fail, I will resort to my powers under merchant shipping legislation. Whatever about my legal responsibilities, I have grave personal concern for the plight of all the people in Irish Shipping and I am heartbroken—it is not too light a word to use—that I have not been able to do more to help those people.
Is the Minister aware of the report that the crew have been given until noon tomorrow to get off the ship and pull down the Irish flag? Who has the right to ask them to pull down the Irish flag without their being satisfied that their legally due moneys will be paid to them?
That is a separate question.
As the protector of the good name of Irish Shipping, would the Minister not see some role for himself in that situation?
It is quite another question but I understand that the orders of the French courts are being carried out. A member of the Irish Embassy in Paris has been sent to Marseilles in order to ensure that all possible steps are taken to deal with any problems that arise.
It is very difficult to contact anybody there today.
I understand the liquidator has gone out. Is the Minister aware of the purpose of the liquidator's visit and is the liquidator the person to negotiate with the staff in regard to their claims? Is that one of the purposes of his visit? Will the Minister say what the final cost to the taxpayer will be when the lease is bought out, less whatever money was received for the ship? What will be the eventual balance the taxpayer will have to pay to finish with the Irish Spruce?
There is another question on that matter and perhaps I could answer it then.
My Question No. 27 asked the Minister the cost to date of the maintenance of the Irish Spruce at Marseilles. The Minister says it is costing £30,000 per week, but that is not really a reply to my question as to the cost to date. Deputy Mac Giolla has pointed out that a figure of £34,000 was mentioned in a previous reply. What is the cost to date to the State?
It is not too hard to work it out approximately but it is difficult to give a precise figure because it is affected by exchange rates and by whatever final settlement is made with the crew. It is very difficult to give an absolutely precise figure.
The taxpayer will have to pay a precise figure.
It will be part of the guarantees given by the Minister for Finance.
Could the Minister not give a gross figure and we could allow for a margin of error?
Deputy Wilson is a teacher of some renown so I am sure he can work it out.
The Minister did not reply to my question regarding the liquidator's visit and what he is empowered to do.
That is another question.
I understand the liquidator has gone to Marseilles to try to finalise arrangements and ensure that everything is properly looked after. I am not responsible for the liquidator. This is only information which I have gone to the trouble of finding out.