Before the adjournment I remarked on the unfair trading advantage which the B & I have over private hauliers. Previous speakers remarked on this. Perhaps the Minister might comment on it when he is summing up. There is no more important person in the State than the person in business who is trying to make a go of it. It is grossly unfair to expect him to compete with semi-State companies which are subsidised by the taxpayer. It is not in line with Government policy. We are not trying to give a stick to semi-State bodies with which to beat the private sector to death.
I maintain, and can supply evidence to the Minister if he wishes, that the B & I are taking container loads for a minimum of 16 per cent below the average cost the most efficient haulier or operator with the keenest prices can offer. We are spending a lot of money to enable the B & I to do that. It is not fair competition and must be stopped.
A Bill is being introduced to ban below cost selling. This practice must be tackled in the same way. Either the private hauliers must be subsidised or else the portion of the subsidy which goes to maintain that part of B & I's business must be cut back.
The company should be allowed to stand on their own or we should give a premium to the haulier.
I should like to give examples of what I consider to be reasonable rates. A reasonable rate for container traffic, 40 foot trailers, coming from London would be £650 while B & I charge £490 which is 30 per cent below it. I reckon that 10 per cent or 15 per cent would be a reasonable margin. The rate from Birmingham would be £575 as opposed to £420 and from Manchester it would be £500 as opposed to £360. They are good examples of reasonable rates considering the volume of traffic. In those circumstances B & I completely undercut although the company, as demonstrated by the Minister and other speakers, incurred massive losses. As well as being a burden on the State, and the taxpayer, in an effort to survive the company are putting other people out of business.
With unit load traffic in normal circumstances most hauliers do not try to compete with B & I any more. They have given that up. It is not on, because B & I charge so little and they own the ships. The hauliers concentrate on groupage or part load traffic because they are more efficient and they have better facilities for that. We are pouring more money into this slow moving, inefficient giant. The figure involved is £38 million and we do not spend a lot of time debating such small amounts of money but the money is being given to a company which in the competitive area cannot stand on their own feet or compete with private business concerns. Is the Minister asking members to support such a concern? Is he asking us to prop up an inefficient company who operate unfairly against taxpayers? Is that Government policy and, if not, will the Minister make some changes before he returns here for Committee Stage?
B & I are geared for unit load and it is easy for them because they own the ferries. The rates charged by the company are unrealistic in the haulage business. Those rates should be considered in conjunction with the fact that B & I operate a cartel with Sealink. What will happen to the prices later? What chance has a private haulier? I regret that I do not know the number of people who operate in that business but I am sure that, following the passage of the liberalised licensing regulations thousands more will be involved. That legislation was introduced in an effort to make the business more competitive and to give a better service to the public. On the one hand we have opened up the haulage business, but we have closed it in another area. If the two concerns operating a cartel on the Irish Sea decide to increase the prices when the officials of the Department say targets are not being met, they will increase the charges to the consumer. What comeback has anybody using those services?
From the research I have carried out I discovered that most hauliers do not try to compete with the B & I. It is fair to say that B & I are running at a loss with container traffic because they could not make a profit charging unrealistic rates. If the company are being deliberately run at a loss, we do not have any business subsidising them. If they were standing on their own and there were no other equally deserving citizens depending on that mode of transport to Britain and the Continent, I would have sympathy for the company but because their actions are damaging native companies and causing job losses, like Aer Lingus with their cartel, I am opposed to it. The company are preventing tens of thousands of people from using their services and do not permit businesses to operate fairly.
I am slow to agree to that amount of money being given to the company without making such comments. I hope those comments will not be ignored although I predict that they will, as usual. If Mr. Alex Spain is as good as we think he is — I have no doubt that he is first class in his field — I am sure he will answer my questions. Is the House prepared to subsidise a loss-making section of the B & I and remove the unfair competition element from the subsidy? Is the House prepared to say it is costing £x million to enable the company to operate an unfair haulage business that is damaging many concerns in the country? The Department may have that information but, if not, it should be possible to get a report from the consultants on that. It should be an easy job to do I hope we will get a report on it. B & I are keeping their rates down to an unrealistic level for unit loads and that is not on.
In the course of the debate on the Road Transport Bill recently I mentioned those points but they were ignored. To ignore such points is not only an insult to the House but it is not serving the electorate well. We should not honour this payment unless all the problems are tackled. Do we want to have lame-duck semi-State companies? I am not sure if the powers that be, the Department, would know a bargain if they saw one and I do not think we have got a bargain here. We must realise the enormity of the problems but, once again, the poor old taxpayer will have to pick up the bill. By allowing the cartel to operate I have no doubt that the charges will rise. If the company are to stand on their feet they will have to increase their charges. The partnership between B & I and Sealink has not been brought about just for the sake of rationalisation. This is a convenient way of pooling the revenues of the two companies. It is the same system as that operated between BEA and Aer Lingus — they have done it for years.
If the company manage to spend the £7 million on improving the service and the comfort of passengers they will do something worth while. Irish men and women, especially those in the lower income group, people who have been forced to use that service or who on principle would not use Aer Lingus when travelling back and forth to Britain, have been treated down the decades like cattle — any old system did. I hope the new approach will succeed in getting rid of all the undesirable aspects of the B & I service and that we can get rid of the fiddles that went on all over the place: friends and relations could wink at members of the staff and after handing them a fiver they would not pay their fares. That was not done rarely but frequently on a large scale. An awful lack of work ethic existed there and in other semi-State companies where they knew they had security around them and did not have to respond as they would have in a private enterprise. Control was exercised by the Seamen's Union over jobs and franchises, everything from operating the catering to the bars and the duty free arrangements. I hope that can be sorted out.
I am not too sensitive about the British company having got the catering arrangements but, having travelled extensively for 20 years, I have never got a decent meal in any British establishment, in any hotel, airport or any vessel operated from Britain. They just do not know anything about good food or good service. Their prices may be better but they will not be able to provide a better service than we could have done.
I do not share the concern some Deputies expressed about the consultancy. I suppose it was necessary to get around the Devlin Report on pay restrictions. You will not get consultants from the private sector coming in to take on tasks like this for the amount of money we could pay them because of restrictions. I do not think that is a big problem if it succeeds in turning the company around. However, it pains me to come into the House — by the way, very few do — when we are engaged in nodding money through in the order of tens of millions of pounds: we seem to think we do not have to take it too seriously when it is not acutely affecting constituency matters. I would point out that this is a major political decision brought about by the sensitivity of the company we are dealing with and the numbers of people employed: they amounted to 2,100, dropping to 1,700 from which about 500 were later knocked off, bringing the numbers down to 1,200. It is amazing how these political decisions are made when we have to make them and how that can be turned into a virtue by the Minister of the day telling us what he is doing, using the first person a dozen times in a short speech in which he is demanding a return, demanding profits and demanding close monitoring and all the rest of it.
There are other decisions to be made, all relating to jobs and economics, which require political action, but that action is not forthcoming, and when it comes it does so very slowly from any Department. It is a slow job to try to get any Department to expend money on creating jobs. The sheer frustration is either driving people to emigrate or give up the ghost altogether.
This Bill is a political decision forced on the Government, but I object to having clouded in that decision a large amount of taxpayers' money to prop up elements of a business that would not stand up on their own. At the same time there is an unfair assault on other businesses trying to operate in the same field. I cannot repeat often enough that this is wrong, and we should take cognisance of that.
I will not go into the pensions element of the Bill now — I will wait until Committee Stage — but I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Has this provision anything to do with the Irish Shipping saga? Is it to give future Ministers a way out? Is it to prevent pay-outs like the £60,000 given to former directors or executives of a crumbling company? What is it for? It could be to ensure that a situation like that which occurred in regard to Irish Shipping employees will not recur. By this section will the Minister be able to make his own decision and pay-out in such circumstances, or is it to prevent having to pay out? I will leave it until Committee Stage.
I do not want to delay the House so I will conclude shortly. I understand the necessity for bringing in consultants in order to turn the company around. An executive of the company could not be paid adequately to undertake such a mammoth task unless he could find some way of by-passing the Devlin Report on pensions. I wish the consultancy and the company well. I hope the company will recover. I think it is unfortunate that we should be instigating a breach of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome by creating a cartel which will rebound on the consumer and the taxpayer.
I do not think I will offend anyone if I say that most of the passengers who use B & I are paying their own fares out of taxed income. It is not acceptable that we should allow irregularities to occur or allow the company to operate against their customers by charging higher fares. There is not much scope to discuss that aspect because so little information has been given to us this morning. I do not know why there was such a lack of information in the speech on Second Stage: perhaps it was an oversight. I note that three officials from the Department are in the House supporting the Minister. I have gone through the Minister's speech several times and I have read the Bill but I have not got answers to the questions that were raised.
I said earlier that the same situation has arisen with regard to other semi-State bodies such as CIE and Aer Lingus. In those cases even greater amounts of money were voted through the House on the nod. I have always found it very difficult to go along with that line. I hope the Minister will ensure that more information is provided between now and Committee Stage. I do not want to be taken for an "eejit". Every time legislation like this comes before the House, I feel I am being taken for an "eejit", for a fool.