asked the Minister for Communications if he has a request from the B & I company for £43 million; if a breakdown and phasing of the figure has been given; if it has been considered by the Government, if a decision has been made; and if legislation is required for the allocation of all or part of the money.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Restructuring of B & I.
29.
The board of B & I submitted proposals to me for the restructuring of the company. The proposals are at present being considered by the Government who have not yet made a decision in the matter. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the substance of the proposals.
Since the company's statutorily authorised share capital of £58 million has been fully taken up, the provision of further State equity for the B & I would require amending legislation.
Would the Minister agree that their new structure, as elaborated on by the new chairman and chief executive of B & I, depends on the provision of £43 million, neatly costed, and would he agree, seeing that the southern corridor arrangement seems to have been put in place, although two ships are being used in place of the jumbo which they could not find, that it is a matter of some urgency that the Minister should clarify for the House and the country the Government's position in regard to the £43 million? Would he state specifically if it has been considered by the Government, even though they have not made a decision on it? Would he state when he thinks a decision will be made on this, as it is a vital matter for the future of the company?
The Deputy may take it that a decision will be made in the very near future by the Government. A Bill to give effect to the decision to make some investment in B & I should come before the House quickly. As I said in my original reply, I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on the substance of B & I's proposals. It is clear, however, that the company are in urgent need of a drastic overhaul because of their financial position. It is my hope that the reorganisation will achieve a bright future for B & I and for as big as possible a proportion of their staff. I want to protect the maximum number of jobs.
There have been proposals by the board; it is possible to consider variations of those proposals, and I am looking at variations at the moment. I hope the Government will be able to come to a conclusion in the very near future on my thoughts in the matter.
Am I right in thinking that included in the £43 million is an amount of equity for which the Minister will have to come to the House with a Bill? If I am right, would the Minister state how much of the purported investment of £43 million is not by way of equity? Could he give an idea of the areas that amount is expected to cover?
It has been well publicised that the board are looking for investment of £43 million by way of equity or grants. They have asked for £43 million of equity. About half of that is in respect of previous losses because of dissipation of equity by the accumulation of losses during the years. The other half is in respect of restructuring the company. There are two major parts and there may be two different ways of dealing with it.
Would the redundancy money be included?
As I have said, I do not want to be drawn into a detailed discussion until a decision has been taken by the Government. The total package put up by the board includes all of the restructuring costs. The plight in which B & I find themselves highlights the awful way in which the State dealt with State companies over the years. I do not blame any Government. For years we dealt with State companies in an awful way. For instance, there was no accountant in my Department until I came to office yet we were dealing with the biggest companies with the largest number of employees in the country. There were no questions being asked, no formalised relationships, no budgets against which performance could be judged. There was frequent day-to-day interference. We have changed that. B & I are the last of the series of companies that I have set out to reform. I hope the decision the Government will come to will set B & I on the road to a brighter future.
Is the Minister trying to exculpate himself by coming to ask the House for far more money by way of equity than was ever asked for before? It seems to me there is total lack of logic in it.
The point I am making is that much of this money is in respect of past losses under past Ministers. We are trying to put right past omissions by various Ministers, and I am not pointing to Deputy Wilson.
I was there for ten months.