Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Jun 1986

Vol. 367 No. 9

British & Irish Steam Packet Company Limited (Acquisition) (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Second Stage (resumed).

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

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.

This is Parliament and we are supposed to have power. In the past few months I had the audacity and temerity to question an amount of £20 million that was given in the form of grants and loans to the State. I asked the question if we were getting value, what were the strings attached and what was the purpose of the borrowing. We must not forget the old saying that you get nothing for nothing in this world. The people who gave us the money come from the country that coined the phrase, "there is no such thing as a free dinner". Yet, I was verbally assaulted by the Minister concerned even though I was only carrying out our job in this House.

I should like to know much more about the performance of the company involved in this case. Even though the intention is good, I do not find it satisfactory that the company will be monitored during the next three years to ensure that we get value. I am telling the House now that we are not getting value, have not got value and are not likely to get value in the future. If the Minister has any considered reply to that I should be anxious to hear it. There have been redundancies among the employees of the company and they have suffered and customers have been ripped off. They have got bad value for the fares paid; customers and hauliers have got bad service and a rough ride across the Irish Sea.

Up to now the company have been a total disaster. A rescue package was put together; the company are now operating and I wish them every success. Nevertheless, we must take a close look at what we are trying to do here. We are told the choice is between rationalisation and survival or else carrying on as before and going the same way as Irish Shipping. We are told there is a surplus of shipping capacity on the Irish Sea routes, that too many ships are chasing too little business. I will not deal with the question of the move to different ports. I will leave Deputy Andrews to deal with that matter and to decide if that is a bonus. Even if there is a move from the North Wall ferry port to Dún Laoghaire, it is still in the Dublin area.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide an additional £38 million in equity for B & I and that comes out of the proposals put forward by the board in respect of restructuring. The losses incurred by the company between 1980 and 1984 amounted to more than £43 million and necessitated provision by the Exchequer of more than £13 million in equity capital. The Minister took action to ensure that state of affairs would not continue and that is how we came to have a new chairman and managing director and how Zeus came into operation. The only safeguard we have that it will not continue to falter in the future is that the company will be monitored. Does that mean if they run into difficulty another Bill will be introduced here, looking for more money?

I am worried about the effect on trade in the private sector where most of the firms concerned are small businesses. I know that B & I are competing with all of those companies. Companies who export by way of container traffic have to compete with a major undertaking like B & I. People in small firms engaged in this work have spent a lifetime in the business. Many of them are mortgaged to the hilt and they hope to survive in the business for a few years. Yet, along comes the representative from B & I and takes the business away. Even when small firms manage to get business they do it for a song. Many of them drive from here to the Continent and earn little, if any, profit. Some of them work only to cover their costs and to make repayments on their vehicles. It is grossly unfair but we are aiding and abetting this company. We may not be doing it intentionally but I have set out the facts and they are on the record. I hope there will be a response to what I have said.

In his speech the Minister referred to the proposals submitted by the company. He referred to co-operation with Sealink and the two-year agreement. I do not like it because the result is that the Irish consumer will have to pay again. The Rosslare-Pembroke service has ceased, and the ferry will come onstream when they get the other vessel. I cannot comment on that and I will leave it to other Members to do so.

As regards the upgrading of on-board services, people are crying out for such a move but whether it will be successful I do not know, although they will probably continue to serve paper cups of tea made with tea bags. It will still be like travelling steerage class, although maybe a little better than the cattle ships which left from the North Wall. There will not be dung on the floors but there will be lots of other stuff in its place.

They are looking for £20 million for 1986 and the Minister says the decision shows the Government's commitment to maintaining a strong Irish presence in the shipping service. He went on to say that such transport services are vital to trade, commerce and the economy. I do not believe this is helping trade and commerce, and the service would need to be upgraded if it is to have an impact on tourism. The company's efficiency leaves a lot to be desired. They were never efficient, and I do not know if we will ever manage to change that.

Are the company on target to produce a profit in 1986? We are handicapped here by a dearth of information. The Minister referred to a lowering of standards which supposedly resulted from the battle for a market share on the sea, but as far as the trade figures are concerned, that is blatently untrue because costs could not have been lower. Therefore, the fact that they are subsidised would not have had any effect on standards. There are a number of questions to be answered. The B & I have cost the hard pressed taxpayer a great deal of money already. If I had 5 per cent of that money per annum over the next ten or 15 years I could create 3,000 or 4,000 jobs: they have 1,200. As I said earlier, I do not believe they would recognise a bargain if it hit them in the face. This applies to all semi-State companies. I often put forward proposals to the Government but it is painful the way they are treated. It is almost impossible to get a decent response.

This not well thought out and very ill prepared submission is now before us and we are asked to say yes to granting this company a huge sum of money. We are told not to worry because the Government will keep an eye on things and everything will be all right, but we know that is not so. I am not happy with this. It is not fair and I do not believe it will benefit anybody. Unless we keep digging our hands in our pockets over the next few years and unless we continue to allow the taxpayers, the traders, the tourists and the travellers to be ripped off, this company will not be a success. I would have preferred this Bill to have been better thought out and all these points to have been taken into consideration. I will discuss these matters in more detail on Committee Stage.

I should like to raise a number of points. As regards section 2, I fear possible interference by the Government in industrial relations and cutting the ground from under the board of management and the work force of the British and Irish Steam Packet Company Limited. Perhaps the Minister would clearly indicate in his reply exactly what the section means. I may be misinterpreting it and if I am, the Minister might tell me. The Explanatory Memorandum is of no assistance whatever. It says:

Section 2 provides that in determining the remuneration and conditions of employment of its staff the Company shall have regard to Government or nationally agreed guidelines or Government policy and shall comply with any directives in these matters which the Minister for Communications may give with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service.

At first reading that appears as if the Government will have a direct role in negotiations between the board and the workforce. For my part, that is a very bad proposal but perhaps the Minister would deal with it. We will vote against that section if it means what I said.

In his speech the Minister said these measures would safeguard the 1,400 jobs which the B & I will continue to provide. If for no other reason, we would be anxious to support the Bill because one thing this country cannot afford is to throw another 1,400 people onto the dole queues. While I agree this is an expensive rescue operation, nevertheless, it is maintaining the jobs of 1,400 people and for that reason alone it is not a bad move. The £38 million sought will go towards the refurbishment of various B & I vessels. I wish the chief executive, the chairman and managing director, Mr. Alex Spain, well in his endeavours. He appears to be a leader and a man of considerable courage. When the crises were at their worst, he was at his best. He was always willing to present his case on behalf of the organisation he now leads. That is a singular quality of leadership and I pay tribute to him on that account. I also wish to pay tribute to the workforce and hope that both the chief executive, Mr. Spain, and his staff will, make a new beginning and, in their joint interests, salvage what is after all a good operation if not a profitable one. We hope it will now enter into profitability as predicted by Mr. Spain on the radio yesterday. I wish him and his company well.

With your permission, Sir, I will refer to a matter which relates to proposals for a unified car ferry terminal as between Sealink and B & I. I presume now that a certain document is public property on the basis that it was produced to public representatives in Dún Laoghaire Town Hall yesterday at 4 p.m. by Mr. Hayes of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. Let me make it very clear that I have nothing but the highest respect and regard for Mr. Hayes who is doing a very difficult job well. The letter is addressed to the Councillors of Dún Laoghaire Corporation and dated 5 June 1986. I quote:

Arrangements have been made with the Town Clerk, Mr. L. Byrne for the Board's General Manager, Mr. R. M. Hayes, to address a meeting of Dún Laoghaire Corporation on Tuesday 10 June at 4 o'clock in the Town Hall. The subject of the address will be the Board's proposals for a unified car ferry terminal for Dublin. I enclose for your information a document prepared for the Board in this regard.

That is why I say now that this document has not the aura of confidentiality about it, so I feel free to quote from it and to mention it, I believe for the first time in the Dáil. It was ably dealt with by the Cathaoirleach of Dún Laoghaire Corporation, Councillor Harvey, yesterday when it was presented by Mr. Hayes to them. Again I pay tribute to Mr. Hayes for having the guts to come, in the nature of things, into the lion's den and present his proposal for what can only be a death blow to an area like Dún Laoghaire. He had a great deal of courage to do what he did and he must be respected in that regard but there I leave him.

This document suggests a unified car ferry terminal/Port and Docks Board. Is the Minister aware of such a document? If not, would he be good enough to bring himself up to the date with the document and its proposals and its costings? The effect of a unified car ferry terminal in the terms envisaged by this document would have a disastrous effect on Dún Laoghaire in many respects. It will have a catastrophic effect if Sealink are withdrawn from Dún Laoghaire and put into unity with B & I in Dublin port. I am demanding of the Minister now that that does not happen and I remind him that there are four Coalition Deputies in the constituency of Dún Laoghaire and that the proposal before me which was presented to Dún Laoghaire Corporation last night would have a horrendous effect on trade and tourism in Dún Laoghaire. As I say, I met the Dún Laoghaire Tourist Association on Thursday last. I know that the Dún Laoghaire Chamber of Commerce, the traders, the hotel and guesthouse owners and everybody in the Dún Laoghaire area are strongly opposed to the prospect of Sealink being brought into Dublin port. If there is to be a unified car ferry terminal, let us have it in Dún Laoghaire. In the eyes of this Government Dún Laoghaire has reached second class status.

That was the B & I proposal, that B & I should go out to Dún Laoghaire rather than the other way around.

Of course, but this is a proposal from the secretary of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. We welcome the B & I proposal, of course. B & I see the wisdom of their proposal, but it is interesting to note that the first paragraph in the document before me states:

A unified ferry terminal to serve the Dublin area has been put forward recently by shipping interests.

I would like to know whose those shipping interests are on the basis of what the Opposition spokesman has said. The quotation continues:

Dublin Port and Docks Board recognise that rationalisation of routes and services is the order of the day and that plans recently announced indicate closer co-operation between B & I and Sealink. One consideration arising from this co-operation is that the Dublin area should have a single car ferry terminal rather than two as at present, One in Dublin and one in Dún Laoghaire.

If there is to be a single car ferry terminal, I am putting this Government and the four Government Deputies in the constituency on notice that the place for that car ferry terminal is Dún Laoghaire and nowhere else.

There are Coalition Deputies in Dublin, too, if that is to be the criterion.

There are indeed. I am going to give the criterion. The criterion is that the people of Dún Laoghaire, the traders, the hotel and guesthouse owners and the shopkeepers want Sealink to be retained in Dún Laoghaire and, if there is to be any question of unification, let Dún Laoghaire be the place where these operations are unified. Only recently hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent on very prominent hotels in the Dún Laoghaire area, on the Royal Marine Hotel, Fitzpatricks Hotel in Killiney, Kelly's Court Hotel and the Victor Hotel and many thousands of pounds were spent on guesthouses in the area, all in anticipation of the growth of the harbour, and here it is proposed by the very esteemed and respected secretary of the Port and Docks Board in a document, certainly if not by him then on behalf of the Port and Docks Board, that there be a unified car ferry terminal for the Dublin area situated in Dublin port.

The Fianna Fáil Party rejected that proposal on behalf of the people of Dún Laoghaire and we will raise it as an issue in the next general election. In the last local elections we set out our plans for the future of Dún Laoghaire in the context of B & I and of Sealink and we will not renege on those promises. They are there as a matter of documented and ascertainable fact, as a matter of history. The document before me has generated shock waves and worry and concern amongst the various organisations and individuals as I have just outlined. It is not good enough to make proposals of this nature without having regard to the effect they would have on the various organisations and individuals in the area where they are guaged to cause the most hurt.

Let me make another point in this regard. Again I am quoting from Unified Car Ferry Terminal, the production by the Dublin Port and Docks Board:

The Board is confident that in consultation with B & I and Sealink a modern terminal conforming to the requirements described above can be provided in Dublin Port.

If Deputy Wilson is correct in the information he has given the House, namely that B & I want to come to Dún Laoghaire, that does not measure up with the statement in this document. Of course we welcome a unified car ferry terminal in Dún Laoghaire. We welcome B & I and we welcome Sealink, but another piece of wisdom in this document is worth repeating. It deals with freight and financial viability. I quote:

Car ferries must carry freight to achieve financial viability so that if B & I transfer to Dún Laoghaire freight volumes would double immediately. This explosion of freight would have a most damaging effect on a residential suburb and high amenity area. Freight and passenger car vehicles would almost certainly spill over on to approach roads resulting in heavy on-street parking and hazardous traffic problems.

Did the authors of this document, well intentioned as it is, regard or take account of the views of the Corporation of Dún Laoghaire and all those other bodies in the Dún Laoghaire area in the context of that statement? Are they aware that there is to be a by-pass through the Black-rock area which would carry the volume of traffic envisaged by the placement of B & I and Sealink in Dún Laoghaire? I reject that thinking. I reject also the following thinking, again from this document:

No difficulty is anticipated in financing the project. Construction costs are estimated at IR£4 million for a unified terminal at the present ferryport location and IR£7 million for a new terminal at North Wall Extension. Throughput figures indicate that annual port revenue would be about IR£3 million. A package of borrowings can be arranged, some short-term from the commercial banks and some long term from pension funds and similar sources. Appropriate grant aid would also be sought from the Government.

I hope that that does not include the Irish Shipping pension funds because, having made a mess of Irish Shipping, B & I and Sealink are also under serious threat. Is the Minister aware of such a document and, if not, will be ensure that the House has full knowledge of it before he responds to my question? Is it the Government's intention to unify the car ferry terminal in the Dublin Port and Docks area to the shock and devastation of the Dún Laoghaire region? There have been car ferries in Dún Laoghaire for over 150 years, including the link with Holyhead which has been in existence for so long. People arriving in Dún Laoghaire see a beautiful entrance to the harbour and we envisage a mesh of amenities and light industry in the context of the type of proposition here, especially in regard to Sealink.

To set the atmosphere and the background for the type of future we envisage for the Dún Laoghaire area in the context of B & I and Sealink, I should like to refer to the Irish Independent of 10 June 1986. It said that up to 1,000 new jobs will be created if Dún Laoghaire Corporation's plans for a marina cum marine estate come to fruition. The borough manager, Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan, said that the corporation hope to reclaim over 60 acres of land in the west pier area of the harbour and transform it into an enterprise centre for marine related industry. He added that discussions are taking place with the Office of Public Works, financial institutions and the EC to ensure that the £15 million development will go ahead within months.

The plan involves the creation of a 600 craft marina, the setting up of a harbour village with marine related industry, a conference and exhibition centre plus other tourist attractions in the west pier area. Mr. O'Sullivan explained that hundreds of workmen would be employed in the construction stage of the new development with potential for 1,000 permanent jobs in the new industry. That is why this report has come as a bombshell to the Dún Laoghaire area because of the suggestion that Sealink might be removed from Dún Laoghaire harbour to unify the car ferry terminal in Dublin port. We reject this out of hand as it was rejected by the members of Dún Laoghaire Corporation last night, led by their very able and outgoing cathaoirleach.

In the context of what the borough manager said — a man of great ability and probably one of the best borough managers in the country in regard to efficiency, co-operation and general approach to local government — about the marina and all its various additions, there has been almost a unanimous rejection of the proposal to bring the unified car ferry terminal to Dublin Port. If there is to be such a terminal, why can it not be in Dún Laoghaire? The cathaoirleach of the borough council, according to this report, claimed that proposals by Dublin Port and Docks for a unified ferry terminal would spell disaster for Dún Laoghaire. So say all of us. Under the proposals, the board hope to accommodate both B & I and Sealink and a new, multi-million pound 20 acre terminal in Dublin Port. However, when the ports general manager, Mr. Robert Hayes, presented a report to the council last night, the cathaoirleach claimed that the Port and Docks Board were not able to look after the present problems, whatever they may be. He then outlined the reasons for Sealink being retained in Dún Laoghaire.

My contribution on this Bill is to expose the report, not to undervalue it or to personalise its authors, but just to make a case for the retention of Sealink in Dún Laoghaire. If there is to be a unified car ferry why can it not be in Dún Laoghaire?

We all welcome the fact that the Minister for Finance intends to take up an additional £38 million in equity in the B & I. I see from the Minister's speech that this amount falls somewhat short of what the board requested. The reality probably is that it is somewhat short of what the board may require to carry out their task in a proper manner. I am a little fearful that we may be making the mistake of inadequately capitalising the firm. If we leave the firm in an over-tight financial position, it puts them at a hopeless disadvantage in trying to organise their commercial activities in a proper manner, if they are bogged down by heavy interest and heavy debt. That may be a reason for not putting more public money into it but if the decision is taken to do that, it should be done properly and adequate funds provided.

It would be a grave mistake and would prejudice the £38 million which will be put in if the amount is inadequate, which I suspect it is, to put the company on a proper, viable commercial footing. We could easily prejudice that money by not making it sufficient. There is a tendency to undercapitalise semi-State firms which applies not only to the B & I but to many other semi-State industries. We complain about them and say they are not pulling their weight and not making profits, but very often we hedge them in with so many restrictions that we take from them the freedom and viability to act as normal commercial enterprises. We expect them to provide services on a social basis — which is right and proper — but we also expect them to be economic in doing so. The effect of providing uneconomic social services is that they run up heavy debts. This compounds the problem because they have high and increasing interest charges to meet. CIE are a case in point. These semi-State companies get bogged down by ever increasing debt, even interest repayments not being met. Yet we expect them to fulfil a social role as well. We cannot have it both ways and we have to face up to this fact.

In this case here with the B & I, for example, it sounds fine that we put in £38 million in money but when one looks at it further, from the Minister's speech we see that in actual fact the bulk of that simply goes towards reducing, not eliminating, the company's borrowings and, of the first instalment of £20 million, which is the lion's share of the input, only £7 million is actually available for the really worthwhile aspect of it, the capital investment to improve the company. The remaining £13 million simply goes towards reducing the company's borrowings. I just hope it will be sufficient to reduce the company's borrowings by a sufficient amount to leave them viable and commercial so that their remaining debt and the servicing of the interest on it will not so weaken and emaciate the cash flow of that company that it will render them over a period of time, nonviable. If it is to work out that way, we would be better off to put nothing in at all and forget the whole thing.

One can fall between two stools. One can be cheeseparing and begrudging and say they have requested a certain amount of money, that we could not go along with all of that, but we can put in some intermediate amount, thereby thinking we are meeting the case to some extent. That is a grave mistake. What ought to be done in these situations is either go the whole hog and do the job properly, give them all the money required to enable them to be competitive and commercial, or else do nothing, say that the whole thing is too much, that we cannot afford it and we are not going to do it. But to fall in between the two, to give some but not enough is the worst of all options. I do not know whether or nor that is the fact.

I have to admit that I am not an accountant and have not had the opportunity to examine the accounts of the B & I in tremendous detail. Even if I did examine them, they would probably be in accountancy language and difficult for a layman to understand. But I smell a rat and it causes me some concern when I see the comment in the Minister's brief: "This falls somewhat short of what the board requested." That is the word the Minister used. I have a strange suspicion that the more accurate word there might be perhaps "required". They should get what is required to enable that company to proceed in a commercial manner, to get up and going and provide the service in a proper manner.

It concerns me that only a relatively small amount of money, £7 million, is going to actually go for the real benefit of improving the nature and the operation of the business. That causes me some little concern and I just hope that the sums have been correctly done and that very great care has been given to the requirements of the company and their needed cash flow and that the allocation of £38 million will enable them, from their profits and cash flow, to cope with the remaining interest debt they will have to meet.

Certainly substantial reinvestment capital is needed in that firm. I have used their services over the years on very many occasions and certainly the standards that have been applied on those ships hitherto have left a lot to be desired. There is no doubt about that. They have compared very unfavourably with other vessels on other channel routes between England and France and so on. The standard provided there left a lot to be desired. One saw the duty free facilities, for example, which ought to be a very major money spinner if used properly. People just walked away; the facilities were so poorly organised that one could not take advantage of them and a great deal of cash flow must have been lost. That is just to pick out one item. The food arrangements were pretty poor too in comparison with other vessels. The £7 million, I suppose, will go a fair way towards improving that situation but I hope we are not going to cheesepare on this and get the worst of both worlds.

There is an aspect of the Bill that I must admit I view with some concern. This concerns sections 2 and 3 of the Bill dealing with the remuneration of staff and superannuation. Section 2 states:

In determining the remuneration or allowances for expenses to be paid to its officers or servants or the terms or conditions subject to which such officers or servants hold or are to hold their employment, the Company shall have regard either to Government or nationally agreed guidelines which are for the time being extant, or to Government policy concerning remuneration and conditions of employment which is so extant, and, in addition to the foregoing, the Company shall comply with any directives with regard to such remuneration, allowances, terms or conditions which the Minister for Communications may give from time to time to the Company with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service.

The point must be made about this section that it appears to ignore the fact altogether that there is an existing comprehensive agreement between the union in this firm and the company, using the available conciliation machinery. Indeed, the unions negotiate here on a free collective bargaining basis and this has worked effectively in the past. For example, only 14 days have been lost through industrial disputes in this company in the past 18 years. This is surely an admirable record and one which no legislation should seek to override. Section 2, if enacted in its present form, would abolish free collective bargaining and would allow the Minister to override all the decisions of the board of directors.

This ministerial power would appear to contradict the sentiment, if not the letter, of the industrial White Paper published by the Government in 1984. This paper stressed the point that directors of semi-State companies must be in a position to offer remuneration in line with the best private companies in order to attract the best possible personnel to top positions in the semi-State or State service. It seems to me that there is a bit of an anomaly in the thinking behind these two sections which are, of course, a crucial part of the Bill. It puts the Minister in a controlling position so far as remuneration is concerned.

One has to ask oneself whether the employees of the B & I and, indeed, of other semi-State companies, where this concept of ministerial control and influence in wage levels is concerned are to be regarded in rank as civil servants. The Bill proposes to tie them to national guidelines, to Civil Service guidelines, and to be bound by the levels of wages that apply in national agreements or would be subject to directives in like manner to the rest of the public service. But the problem is that, when it comes to the crunch, they do not have the advantages the Civil Service have, for example, security of tenure in their posts, and did we not see what became of the workers in Irish Shipping?

The Minister is saying these employees come in at the same rank as civil servants; they are to be bound where their wages and earnings are concerned by the national guidelines and by national pay agreements, but they have a disadvantage in that they will be subject to that control and free collective bargaining taken away from them but, so far as security of tenure in their job is concerned, that is another matter and they are as subject to the loss of their job as the unfortunate workers in Irish Shipping. I do not see why this one item of control should be vested in the Minister where the commercial administration of a semi-State body is concerned. Why single out the question of workers' remuneration particularly in a company where, from the information given to me, it has worked so well all these years? Why single out this one item of wages control and national directives on wages and actually write it into the Bill?

I do not say there should be no accountability by the board of directors of this semi-State company and, indeed, of any semi-State company. Accountability must be a key factor for boards of all State or semi-State companies or indeed any board handling public funds. However, one has to draw the line between accountability and commercial responsibility. I hope the Minister will have a look at this and bear in mind the recommendations of the Government's own industrial White Paper policy when enacting the sections on the remuneration of staff, and also have regard to the outstanding record of the unions and management with their experience of free collective bargaining.

This question of accountability is very important and I fully accept it is right and proper that the Minister and Government should have an eye on what investments are being made, know exactly what is going on and be fully apprised of the uses to which public moneys in those firms are being put. I fully accept that. We have seen all too sadly what has happened on a number of occasions recently when that degree of watchfulness lapsed and the troubles that ensued. However, that is different from saying that the viability and freedom of action of a board of directors running a commercial concern to negotiate their wages and staff agreements with the members of their firms should be subject to ministerial controls and particular wage guidelines.

It is very important in semi-State companies, as in any commercial undertaking if it is to be a success, that the best possible people, particularly in the upper echelons of management, should be employed. If one wants to make a success of a commercial concern, particularly where competition exists or one is trying to promote business, one must have good top people there who know their job. One must be in a position to make it worth their while to stay in the company so that one does not lose these people to the private sector, which is not hidebound by directives or Government guidelines. All too often in the semi-State companies and Government services across all levels we find that the first class people with the expertise and initiative to produce business and results are weaned away from the public service to the detriment of that service and are taken up readily enough by private enterprise, where their work is recognised, and the companies are prepared to pay them for it.

The rationale of taking a commercial company such as the B & I and trying to write into a Bill provisions which will rigidly control wages and salaries of the workers, including the upper echelons who are and will be crucial to operating and manipulating very substantial assets which belong to the people of Ireland, seeking to put an artificial element into the control of those salaries, seems highly dangerous. It could result on a number of crucial occasions in the loss of key management and key staff who could make all the difference between B & I being or not being a sound, viable commercial company that could produce profits and very worthwhile jobs for the country. It is inappropriate to have such controls. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and not single out this one item of wages to be used as a rope around the neck of the company when they are seeking to attract and keep important members of the staff, without whom possibly the whole project could not continue on a viable basis.

By all means have arrangements and provisions organised with the company that the Minister can see what is going on, what investments are being made and how money is being spent. He should have an input there. That is right and proper, but the reason for singling out this one item escapes me. It could put this whole very worthwhile project in jeopardy and should be re-examined. As a generality, I do not like the idea of such restriction on wages being written into a Bill with a view to its operation in any semi-State body.

This morning the Minister outlined the different proposals between himself and the board. He spoke about B & I and Sealink having arrangements for the Rosslare-Fishguard route and of a proposal for a new Sealink jumbo vessel. As a Deputy from Wexford, I am especially interested in Rosslare, as are all Wexford Deputies. It is a major tourist attraction and an important advantage in every way to Wexford in particular. It is often described as the gateway to Europe.

The Minister's remarks about a two year agreement makes one ask what will happen when that agreement ceases. What will happen if Sealink pull out of that agreement? Will B & I have a ship of their own to operate that route, or will we all have to travel to Dublin in order to cross the sea? The Minister mentioned the Government's commitment to maintaining a strong Irish presence in shipping services to this country. One has only to go back a few months to see the Government's attitude towards Irish Shipping Limited and to the present position of ICL, which is undecided. There is much rumour and innuendo but no concrete solution has been put forward to the difficulties of ICL which were the profit making section of Irish Shipping Limited.

The Minister later speaks about the £7 million capital investment and the need to improve the sales area and making travelling across the Irish Sea far more enjoyable than in the past. As one who has travelled three or four times a year for the past number of years, I would welcome any improvement on the ships travelling across the sea. The passenger in years gone by was not treated in a very reasonable way by the shipping companies. I agree with Deputy Skelly who referred to the ships as more like cattle trucks. They were not very comfortable or up to date and did not take the well-being of the customer into account.

With regard to Mr. Spain and the consultancy company, one would have to accept that it was better to have a consultancy company put in than a receiver or a liquidator. At least Mr. Spain has made some effort to solve the problems of B & I. We all accept that action had to be taken to correct the problems there. The on-going losses could not have been allowed to continue. One must still wonder about the vagueness of the present situation. There have been no annual reports published for 1984 and 1985. What are the actual losses of B & I at present? It is strange that this House is asked to support a £38 million investment for B & I when we cannot get reports, facts or figures about losses and so forth. It is difficult to make a real judgment on the merits of this investment. There has been talk about £7 million capital investment, but obviously £31 million is being put in to cover borrowings in other areas of B & I activity.

As the Minister has pointed out, the continuation of B & I is certainly in the interests of the national economy and of tourism. One hears many politicians saying that the future for job creation lies in tourism. It is essential that we should have adequate shipping facilities. We are talking about £38 million of the taxpayers' money. We hear much talk about not wasting that money. Here we are asked to support a £38 million investment without being given the entire picture behind what the Minister has in mind. I am only a short time in this House but when Bills come through authorising the spending of taxpayers' money, I wonder if it is always being spent in the right direction and in a proper manner. Is the taxpayer being taken into account?

The arrangement between B & I and Sealink about which the Minister has talked is, I fear, developing into a cartel arrangement with price increases. On the Rosslare to Fishguard route at the moment, judging by the number of complaints that I and other politicians receive, the consumers are not totally happy with the price increases which have come about since this arrangement came in. At the end of the day it is the consumer who will suffer because of lack of competition and of control over such a cartel.

I would like to ask the Minister how he intends to protect the consumer? Many people regard the fare from Rosslare to Fishguard as the dearest in Europe. It is important that the whole area of consumer protection be looked at. B & I and Sealink should not keep increasing their prices because the people using those services are ordinary taxpayers. Deputy Skelly also mentioned this point. In the forties, fifties, and sixties many people had to leave the country through lack of jobs and opportunities. They are the people who use the service when coming home in the summer, at Christmas or for bank holiday weekends. We have a duty to ensure that their interests are protected and that the price being sought are reasonable and fair. I do not expect B & I or Sealink to make massive losses. They operate to make a profit, just as any enterprise should; but they should not be allowed hike up their prices and completely monopolise the route. At present people maintain that the prices are 25 per cent above what they should be. I do not know how accurate that claim is or if it is correct.

We have heard much talk about fuel prices in recent times. The reason prices were increased was because of the high cost of oil. Yet we have had a 50 per cent reduction in crude oil prices. This should result in fares remaining static, if not reduced, rather than being increased. Taking into account the losses which B & I incurred and the fact that Sealink is now being run by Mr. Sherwood, an American who is also interested in making profits, prices should at least be maintained at a reasonable figure.

We should look at the financial arrangements between B & I and Sealink. Are the profits shared on a 50-50 basis or are they leaning in favour of Sealink? This House, which will be asked to support the spending of taxpayers' money, and the public have a right to know what interests B & I have in this? Will they make a profit? Some people maintain, and again the Minister should give us clarification on this, that Sealink are getting the greater share of the profit. The suggestion has been made by different people, both inside and outside this House. One would also wish to know the marketing arrangements. At present there seems to be difficulties in relation to hauliers getting space on ships and availing of the services. These difficulties were not there when they travelled by Sealink or B & I as individual ships. There is a general complaint from hauliers at present.

To spend money on the development of shipping is worthwhile and is certainly a welcome change for this Government. We must also spend money in the development of the services connected with shipping. Rosslare is an area where there is great potential for development, not alone in the interest of Rosslare Harbour and Wexford but also in the interest of the State. It is the fastest developing port in Ireland. We have had the minimum of expense in that area. We have had a lot of piecemeal development over the last nine or ten years. Yet it has developed and over one million passengers a year go through Rosslare. It is a major tourist area and is the main route into this country for tourists.

There is talk about a jumbo ship which will be owned by Mr. Sherwood and Sealink. One would question the position in relation to this ship. Rumour has it that this ship will not get into Fishguard unless the port is dredged. This would cost about £8 million. Who will invest £8 million in the dredging of that area? Will it be Sealink or will it be a joint effort between B & I and Sealink? Will there be two ships operating in that area and no jumbo ship? What would happen if a jumbo ship breaks down? Would we be left without a service in the Rosslare area? That would not be in the best interests of the country or of the development of tourism. I do not know whether or not it is a good idea to have one person controlling the shipping route from Rosslare as is happening at present. What will happen if Sealink pulls out of Rosslare and decides to operate somewhere else? The country would be left high and dry. That area should be examined by the Minister to see if it is a feasible proposition. The best industrial relations in the country exists in Rosslare, with people there who have years of experience. There has never been a strike there. They think that a jumbo ship would not be in the interests of the whole development of Rosslare, of Wexford and of the country as a whole.

A number of speakers mentioned the problem in relation to freight hauliers. There are some cowboy hauliers in Ireland. But last night in Wexford we met a number of legal hauliers who are concerned with priority being given to hauliers operating with B & I. They feel that they are not getting a proper service. They are left stranded at ports awaiting travel space and opportunities to get in or out of the country. I am sure the Minister is very much aware that the hauliers are operating on the minimum of profit at present. Some of them have invested so much money in the past few years in new tractor units and new trucks, and trying to compete with Northern Ireland hauliers and cowboy hauliers, that they find it almost impossible to make money. B & I should not be allowed to cast the hauliers to one side. Hauliers should be given an equal opportunity of getting space on their ships. The Minister should look at this area because B & I are continually denying all this. Those hauliers have experience of what is happening and they are very angry and frustrated. B & I are entitled to 50 per cent of the space for the transportation of steel, peat moss and so on, but the hauliers are being left to one side.

The cartel arrangement has also meant increased charges for hauliers who contend that they have increased by 12½ per cent on what they were before the new B & I-Sealink arrangement came into being. They have made representations to us to find out the reasons why such increases have taken place. Because of a reduction in fuel prices they had to hold their prices at a reasonable level, and reduce them in some cases because of competition, They cannot find any reason why they should have to pay a 12½ per cent hike. This is the figure given by the hauliers association. It is not my figure. The Minister should spell out whether there has been an increase in charges and the reasons why. He should try to give a reasonable answer to these people who are feeling the pinch and finding it difficult to make a decent living.

The Minister referred to the fact that the sales areas on the car ferries have been redesigned in order to make them more attractive. One would have to question why Irish companies have not got the franchise for catering and also for the duty free shops. British companies have been engaged to provide these services. There is a lot of public disquiet and concern among Irish companies as to why they were not engaged in these areas. They are entitled to an explanation. Were they too expensive? Were they not up to standard? Were they not capable? If the arrangement between B & I and Sealink is on a 50/50 basis, we are entitled to have our share of Irish products on those ships. There should be a sales drive to sell Irish products. If Sealink are now owned by an American, we should be able to do a deal so as to ensure that Irish products are sold and marketed. They may be available on those ships but if you travel on those ships you do not find a sales pitch for Irish products.

Mr. Spain seems to be a very capable man. He is on a very high salary. People will contend he is entitled to that. I am sure that if Mr. Spain were approached and asked he could work out a sales deal for Irish products. We have drink, jewellery and other products being produced in this country which are recognised as top class world wide. We should be in a position to ensure that out products are sold and marketed on those ships. Many of our major companies have gone into receivership, liquidation or gone out of existence completely. We have a duty, if taxpayers' money is being spent in B & I, to ensure that Irish products are given a fair chance and opportunity to compete with other products on board these ships.

Rosslare again figures in the ICL situation. The Minister should tell this House if B & I intend to purchase ICL. Yesterday, I was in Rosslare and rumours were rife that B & I intend to announce on Friday that they are going to purchase ICL. That may be only a rumour or a suggestion from people. It is important that ICL be kept in Irish ownership. In one of today's national newspapers — and we cannot always believe what they tell us — there was a reference to an Irish consortium purchasing ICL. Therefore, we have different rumours and suggestions. At the end of the day, it is important that ICL should remain in Irish ownership. It is a profit making section of Irish Shipping. They have many good workers who are committed to working for this country. It is important to Rosslare and the country that we ensure ICL are kept in Rosslare and in Irish ownership. I would like the Minister to spell out quite clearly what his intentions are in relation to ICL. While it is the liquidator's problem and he has the final say, it is important that on an issue which is vital to the general economy the Minister should also have a say to ensure that ICL are kept in the right hands and not given away to foreign owners who will cream off massive profits. This is one of the areas the Minister should seriously consider. I have said this on a number of occasions in this House and I will continue to say it until such time as we have an Irish owner for ICL.

In relation to section 2 I agree with Deputy Taylor to a certain extent. It has become the norm for different Ministers to write wage controls into a Bill. There has been a very good working relationship in B & I as other speakers have pointed out. There have been few strikes in the company and it is not necessary for any Minister to write into a Bill that wages will be controlled. We should leave it to the unions and the conciliation boards to deal with wages in the best interests of the workers and the semi-State company involved. It is becoming a common practice of the Government to write in wage controls in Bills that go through this House.

Finally, I hope the Minister will respond in a positive way to some of the suggestions and comments which were made. Clarification is needed in some areas. I hope there will be some definite decision in relation to ICL and that they will remain in Irish ownership in Rosslare working for Wexford and the country.

Ag cuidiú leis and leasú seo, in contributing to the Bill, described as an amending Bill, I am fascinated to find that our translators could not put suitable Irish on the British and Irish Steam Company Limited. Rather, they put it in the English form and repeated it in the second language which most of us use in our daily lives notwithstanding the fact that Gaeilge is the official language. I am disappointed with that aspect at the outset. If this Bill was coming in as a leasú we should have changed the title of the company from what it used to be because "it ain't what it used to be". The British and Irish Steam Packet Company Limited could easily have been translated or changed. Then, we would have been able to put an Irish term on the new title of this company. "The British and East Coast of Ireland Company" would have been a more suitable title. Bearing in mind the doubts being expressed by people in Rosslare, one could almost call it the British and Dublin-based company because slowly but surely that is what is happening to the B & I. Not alone has it departed from the south and south-west coast and gone to the east coast, but there are fears being expressed that it might be centralised in Dublin. One wonders if anybody in the Government or the Department took into account the Eastern Region Development Organisation report or the joint submission to the Government by the various regional development organisations and their comments on the ERDO report, which are relevant to this debate. It is relevant to refer to what is happening on the east coast. It is not happening just now with the contraction in the operations of the B & I to operate out of Dublin only. I shall deal with the departure from Cork later.

I hope to use extracts from this submission to illustrate that this Government are continuing to centralise anything in or around Dublin. Of course, that was demonstrated by the Taoiseach recently when he considered it more appropriate to keep open the coffee shops in Dublin than do anything for the rest of the country. The Government have taken no notice whatsoever of this fine report published by the ERDO. For example, it is predicted in the report that, even without further immigration the proportion of the State's population is likely to rise within the next 25 years. It is said that this is of serious concern to other regions because it signifies for them a declining share of the State's population and the possibility of a declining share of the national resources. Therefore they say the ERDO report presents a challenge to Government to take positive measures to make regional policy effective in the national interest.

There is mention of the regional policy review of 1972 in which it was said that the Government were anxious to make regional policy more effective and to aid the development of the economy as a whole. At that time the strategy envisaged by the Government included development in Dublin to be such as to accommodate the natural increase in its existing population. The objective was to have strong urban areas to counter regional imbalance by, among other things, providing elsewhere some of the qualities which make Dublin so attractive a centre for population and employment. It is still the view of RDOs outside the eastern region that the 1972 statement should reflect Government policy, providing valid aspirations for the regions seeking to develop their potential to the full.

The provisions of this Bill take no account of the warnings contained in that report. The ERDO report pointed out that Dublin city and county gained almost 23,000 net immigrants between the years 1971 and 1981 and that the region as a whole gained over 59,000. It was contended, therefore, that the problems of further flows of immigrants could not be ignored. The principal assumption in the ERDO settlement strategy was made in the absence of effective Government measures to control the growth of Dublin and the east region and to positively tap latent potential growth in other regions.

I contend that what has happened and is happening in the case of the B & I is central to those observations of the ERDO report. Indeed, they went on to say that air pollution, crime, vandalism and traffic growth contributed to a general downgrading of the quality of life in the eastern region. It is hardly necessary for me to elaborate on the matter of vandalism and its cost in the Dublin area, in the eastern region and throughout the country.

The RDO's in their conclusion, were satisfied that there was urgent need for a Government response to their submission because they contended that, if existing trends are allowed continue, it would be to the economic and social detriment of the eastern and other regions of the country.

The NESC report, No. 81, on the Designation of Areas for Industrial Policy, stated that the historical trend of the growth of the eastern region relative to other areas is undesirable, primarily from a social viewpoint but also from an economic viewpoint. The Taoiseach himself is reported as saying that the development of regional policy is long overdue. He said that at the Dublin Crisis Conference of February 1986. The RDOs agree. They consider that Government regional policy should be instrumental in effecting planned and balanced growth of the country as a whole and should incorporate effective measures for this purpose. All of what I have to say henceforth will have a distinct bearing on those comments.

In the course of his introductory remarks this morning the Minister had this to say:

The purpose of this short Bill is to enable the Minister for Finance to provide up to £38 million in additional equity for the B & I Company. The Bill also confers upon the Minister for Communications.

—in association with, I am sure, the Ministers for Finance and the Public Service—

certain controls in relation to the rumuneration and superannuation of the staff of the company, ...

That is an extraordinary turn of events, but it is beginning to crop up in every Bill coming before the House, even the SFADCo one of yesterday. It seems to me that in future trade unionists and the trade union movement in general, the employers, boards of management and personnel managers will have no function in deciding the remuneration and superannuation of employees of semi-State bodies.

I wonder do the Labour Party, who assume that they represent the workers and trade unionists — and, of course, they do because they collect the political levy, it is mandatory on them to subscribe to that political levy — realise what their Government are doing? Do they realise that this levy being subscribed by all the members will be used for something other than the negotiation of conditions of employment and remuneration, which has always been one of the principal planks of the trade union movement? Always they have negotiated conditions of pay and work on behalf of their members. How can the Labour Party allow this Government decision to be included in the provisions of Bills introduced in this House, so that in future they will be Ministers who will decide such matters? In this case there are three Ministers involved, the Ministers for Finance, Communications and the Public Service. On the day of reckoning I leave it to the workers and trade unionists to judge for themselves who will be their future negotiators, who will be responsible for negotiating their pay claims and so on.

The Minister, in the course of his introductory remarks had this to say:

In view of the substantial losses incurred by the B & I in recent years — between 1980 and 1984.

I will make a more detailed submission on that and will give the losses for each year. In his speech the Minister also referred to:

... substantial cost efficiencies to be achieved through reduced manning levels and changes in work practices in all areas of the company's business.

There is no reference to the loss of 400 jobs, nor is there any reference to the jobs which were lost when B & I withdrew from Cork. There was no compassion shown to those people. There is a very interesting point made by the Minister. He stated:

The Government's decision to continue support for B & I is an indication of their commitment to maintaining a strong Irish presence in shipping service to this country ...

It has already been stated that a Bill similar to this one was introduced before Irish Shipping was scuttled. When I see something like this I am reminded of that. How can we have a strong Irish presence in shipping services when Irish Shipping was scuttled?

The Minister also stated:

There is no need to remind the House that as an island nation our access transport services, particularly those between Ireland and Britain, are vital to trade, commerce and tourism and to our national economy generally.

Further on he states: "... They welcome external participation in shipping services". Are we to take it that every last piece of shipping is to be handed over? If they are left in power we could expect that to happen, but thankfully the day is drawing near when this Government, who in their time closed everything down and caused the Irish flag to be hauled down in various parts of the world, will be thrown out of office. I have no doubt where they would be heading otherwise. They would scuttle the B & I. The hallmark of their operations was to close everything and liquidate everything at the first sign of trouble.

It was stated that the board and management of the B & I deserve recognition for their resolute approach to difficult problems. I am not sure that statement is correct. As a Corkman I do not agree with that statement. Perhaps they deserve recognition for their services out of Dublin and Rosslare, but no Corkman will compliment them for the treatment they meted out to Cork. Perhaps they were merely carrying out Government policy. If they were, I shall have to reconsider my position.

The decision to change from Swansea to Pembroke was a mistake. That heralded the beginning of the end of the ferry service from Cork to the UK. There is more to crossing the Irish Sea than just the crossing. Account must be taken of how people get to the ferry on one side and how they get to their destination after they leave the ferry on the other side. What was in Pembroke when the B & I went there? There was a promise of infrastructural development. It suited the thinking in the B & I to go up to the overloaded east coast, in order to copper-fasten the service from Dublin. People were not enthusiastic about using the ferry to Pembroke because there was an inadequate road structure there to take them to the various parts of England and Wales that they wished to go to.

The Minister also stated that the bulk of the £7 million capital investment is being spent on vessel refurbishment. Where is that refurbishment being done? This Government have sat by since 1984, when they closed the dockyard in which they had a 49 per cent stake. They will not acknowledge the efforts being made to reopen the dockyard to meet the repair needs of the shipbuilding industry. The Minister had the audacity to state that the bulk of this money is being spent on vessel refurbishment.

Disgraceful.

In a recent debate I stated that £2.500 million was being spent on the refurbishment of the Connacht in British shipyards. This Government sit silently and uselessly by ——

I will refrain from using that word because of the context in which it was used at one time. I am pleased the Minister referred to the dockyard because otherwise the Chair would have insisted that I confine my contribution to the B & I. However, by telling us that the refurbishment of those vessels would be carried out in foreign shipyards the Minister has given me that opportunity to refer to the Cork dockyard. To their eternal disgrace the Government have not made any effort to encourage the reopening of the dockyard in Cork.

At our Ard-Fheis in 1985 I made a commitment that on Fianna Fáil's return to Government I would ensure that the yard would be reopened and a shipbuilding programme embarked upon. It is a disgrace that the Government have allowed repair work to go to foreign shipyards. I should like to refer to the P31, subsequently named Eithne, the pride and joy of that dockyard and the last vessel to be built there. In November 1984 we suggested to the Government that the vessel should be constructed at the dockyard and sold as a fishery protection vessel around the world, but what has happened since? Vessels based on that design are being built in places like Singapore, the Far East, the Middle East and India. The Government leased the design of that vessel to those shipyards on the condition that they are paid £1 million for each ship built. However, the workforce that had the skill to put the first P31 together are idle in Cobh and surrounding areas. The Government should have insisted on the refurbishment being carried out in Irish dockyards. They should be ashamed of themselves. The Government should have made an effort to reopen the Cork dockyard and helped the workers who lost their jobs, and the local authorities, in their efforts to reopen the yard. Is the Minister aware that 250 of the workers who lost their jobs have indicated their willingness to contribute at least £1,000 of their redundancy money? All we want is a commitment and encouragement from the Government, but all our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

The Minister told us that the new agreement will achieve a more efficient utilisation of vessels while providing a better overall service to the consumer. What is the Minister talking about? What consumer is he referring to? Is he referring to people who live in the Dublin region? Is he considering those who have to travel from places like Dingle by train to Dún Laoghaire to get the ferry to Britain? I do not think so. The tourist trade is very important for the south-west region which has suffered greatly from the economic position in the country. Cork had the dubious distinction of being the black spot following the closing of traditional industries, but we have great tourist attractions.

A short time ago the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, suggested that Cork people should do something for themselves, that if there were such a response it would be recognised by the Government. Is the Minister of State aware that a group of Cork people, and the local authorities, are prepared to negotiate with the liquidator for the take over of the dockyard? Is he aware of the response by the Government to that initiative? The least the Government should have done was to acknowledge that effort and give whatever assistance was needed. In the case of the Cork dockyards we were only talking about £2 million but the Government could not see their way to give that money. They have not responded in a meaningful way to the initiative taken by people in the south west who suffered so much as a result of factory closures and so on. Those people were anxious to develop the tourist industry but they needed a direct shipping link between Cork and the UK. The Minister, Deputy Mitchell, will recall that public representatives from the south headed a deputation that met him to discuss that link. Those representatives took a back seat at that meeting and allowed the exporters, the tourist interests, and even the taximen, to make their case. They were determined to provide an alternative sea link to the B & I which had gone to the east coast but, following all the dithering and uncertainty, we were told we would be receiving only £300,000. That money was received too late in the year to be effective, long after the plans had been published. The efforts of the local people were scuttled in the same way as Irish Shipping were scuttled.

In his speech the Minister of State referred to the battle for the market share. This is unbelievable. He said that reductions in fares were the only means of attracting extra passengers. If that is the criterion by which B & I are running their operation is it any wonder they have found themselves in this position? I said earlier that there is more to the running of a service than just the sea crossings between two termini. How is it that the Minister this morning did not indicate the other means by which passengers could be attracted than by lower fares? I will not say that the arrival of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Brien, is timely, because a few moments ago I mentioned his name. Perhaps he was listening on the monitor.

The Minister has been quoted in his daily paper down our way as saying that if Cork people showed initiative and did something for themselves the Government would respond. I agree that any group of people anywhere need to show some initiative, enterprise, innovation, if they ar to get a response in a positive way. I have cited two examples of the Government not acknowledging initiative and drive by Cork people, by the workers and the local authorities in Cork, who tried to re-open the dockyard. The response of the Government was negative. A delegation representing exporters, the tourism trade and others came to Kildare Street with an initiative but the Government's response was so late that when the decision came to provide a ferry in 1984 it was not effective. We are not short of initiative in Cork; we are not short of people who want to do something. It is said that actions speak louder than words, and Cork people have indicated that they are prepared to take initiatives. However, the Government responses to their initiatives have been too late or non-existent. If groups of people with good intentions go a certain distance, their ultimate success always requires that the Government, the local authority, the IDA or some other body charged with responsibility must acknowledge the efforts made locally.

Towards the end of his speech the Minister said: "It must be clearly recognised that the company's future cannot be assured by Government support alone. It is equally dependent on full co-operation by all concerned ..." I could not agree more — it is one of the few positive statements in the speech. The Minister said it was equally dependent on full co-operation by all concerned in the provision of continuous reliable and efficient service. I am not sure whom the Minister was talking about when he said "all concerned". Was he talking about the employees of B & I or the people who would be of tremendous help if they had a service in the south west region? Would it not be nice for the Minister to know that the people from Cork who came here to talk to the Minister for Transport were 100 per cent behind the effort? The Minister and the Government would have the response the Minister is looking for, but this must be a two-way operation. It cannot be one-sided, and it cannot be emphasised sufficiently that B & I were incorrect in their decision.

In the last paragraph of his speech the Minister said that the Government's objective was to ensure secure employment for B & I employees and to contribute to the development of tourism and the trade and general economic growth. What area of the country was the Minister talking about: was it Dublin 4 and its environs? Is this a Government for the Pale? Surely if one talks about the development of tourism, trade and general economic well-being he must include the south west region. Was the Minister seriously talking about the whole country when he made that statement? The Minister should have been honest and truthful enough to say that he was talking about a limited area and not give the impression that the £38 million being provided for B & I was for the benefit of the whole country. Let us face it, it is not when you ignore an area the size of the south west — a colleague expressed reservations about the south east. As I said, there should have been a new title to the Bill but that did not happen. We will deal with the matter as presented to us. I am sorry that the Minister of State has left the House because I should have liked to tell him about the initiatives we took in Cork.

With substantial help from the Government.

In Cork? I have not seen any evidence of it and from the accounts I am getting it does not appear there is any evidence of help from the Government for Waterford either. I note there have been two or three changes of the guard on the opposite side. I do not mind because if I have to restate the case I will do so.

Surely the Deputy did not expect one man to sit listening to him all the time?

I am glad I have the attention of two or three Ministers. They may think my contribution is hitting too hard, but they have heard nothing yet. I have no doubt that the Minister and the Government are aware of a report presented on the Cork-Swansea summer service for 1984. It was prepared at a cost to the people of Cork by the firm of Touche Ross and Company, Chartered Accountants, doing the job the Department should do. We were obliged to have this job done because we tried unsuccessfully to get the message across to the Minister by way of deputation and delegation. Eventually, we decided it was best to get professional people to talk to other professional people in the Department and through them to an uncaring and unheeding Government about a ferry link for the south coast.

I should like to read the entire report but I realise it would be superflous because I know the Department, the Minister and the Government have got the report. Nevertheless, there are significant elements I shall quote but I will not do so out of context. The report was prepared by Touche Ross and Company from information supplied by the Cork Harbour Commissioners, Associated British Ports and Irish Continental Lines Limited. The following documents were the main sources of information: Swansea to Cork via "Emerald Gateway", an appraisal prepared jointly by the Harbour Commissioners and Associated British Ports and Swansea and Port Talbot Docks, produced in 1983, a copy of which I have here.

For the benefit of the Minister I shall quote some interesting extracts from that document to prove to him and to the Government that the people in Cork have not just been sitting back, that we have not come up here cap in hand to this miserable, broken down, inefficient, inadequate and leaderless Government. When we come forward with a case we have it well prepared, well documented and researched. It is obvious that some of my colleagues on the opposite side have no influence with their Government to help in this matter. This bankrupt Government have one ambition for Cork, namely, to close down everything at the first sight of trouble. They will keep Bewleys open but they will close everything in Cork, including Egans. Also used in preparation of the document was a report by Irish Continental Lines Limited on the Cork-Swansea service produced in November 1983 and a report by the same company on the Cork-Swansea summer service for 1984.

For almost 160 years direct passenger freight services have operated from the port of Cork to UK ports. In that time records indicate that there was a thriving shipping service in and out of Cork which laid the foundation for economic development in subsequent years. It was vitally important for an area like the south-west to have that outlet for its many agricultural products and the by-products from the tanneries. Regrettably in subsequent years the port was used for a purpose we did not like, namely, the emigration of our people. They took the boat at Penrose Quay and subsequently at Tivoli when it was moved further down the harbour. It was a useful link for our kith and kin and it enabled them to dock in Cork when they returned on vacation from their workplaces in Manchester and London. These people worked throughout the year for the one or two weeks they spent at home and they used the ferry until B & I decided to concentrate their efforts in Dublin and on the east coast.

In his speech the Minister spoke about the development of tourism, trade and economic growth. How can we have those things in the Cork region without an adequate shipping link to Britain where markets are available, although they may not be available to the same extent as formerly because nowadays our higher costs in respect of energy and taxes mean we cannot be competitive vis-à-vis producers in the UK. However, that is no reason not to acknowledge the efforts of the people of Cork to replace a ferry link with Britain that has been foresaken by the B & I.

We are asked to approve the expenditure of £38 million and other provisions in this Bill. I do not accept some of the provisions and I will not discuss them again. Deputies from all over the country are expected to give unqualified and unrestricted support for this measure. Whatever we do, we are not expected to make any unfavourable comment. The Minister said it is awful having to listen to me. I am sorry for him or for any other Minister, but it is my duty as a Cork Deputy to pursue these matters on behalf of my constituents without losing sight of my commitment to the national interest. I do not want to be misquoted or misunderstood, but the national interest is as much my concern as the local interest. In considering this Bill I will of course take into account the national interest. I want to lay emphasis on the regional interest of the south-west. What was embarked on by the B & I in the south-west region was unacceptable to me, to put it very mildly.

Section 2 of this report dealt with the market. Of crucial importance to the viability of a Cork/Swansea service is the size and share of the market it may reasonably hope to attain. Prior to the move by the B & I from Swansea in 1979, the Cork/Swansea service had a market share of approximately 13 per cent and 10 per cent respectively of total accompanied car and total sea passengers between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I have facts to back up what I am saying. This documentation on the "Emerald Gateway," Cork to Swansea, is already in the Department.

If the B & I were carrying out Government policy, then the Government are wrong and they must accept responsibility for what has happened. I will not allow them to shirk that responsibility by saying that the board of B & I did this, that or the other. Either the Government are responsible or they are not. It is fair to say that this Government have been irresponsible in many areas and that adding another item to their list of irresponsibilities will run off them like water off a duck's back, because they do not appear to be one whit sensitive to the constructive criticism which has been levelled at them since they came into office. The best defence they have is that they are paying for what happened between 1973 and 1977. If Government Deputies think that will work outside the chapel gates they are in for a surprise, because they cannot get away from the fact that out of the last 13 years Coalition Governments were in power for more than eight years. It mistakes were made, if there were misjudgments——

I presume the Deputy is still on the Bill?

Yes, I am talking about the misjudgment of the B & I in leaving Cork. If this Government felt mistakes had been made it was up to them to correct those mistakes, if they had the ability to do so.

I was talking about the "Emerald Gateway" and the market. The market share reduced significantly after the move to Pembroke and the introduction of the Rosslare service. Both harbour authorities and Irish Continental Lines believe that a peak summer service could attract a market share comparable to that achieved previously on the route, provided a suitable vessel was made available. That belief is based on the following facts. First, the Irish Tourist Board data indicate that 48 per cent of all United Kingdom sea visitors to Ireland originate in the south-east and south-west regions with an additional 8 per cent originating in Wales. The port nearest to these regions for crossing to Ireland is Swansea — 207 miles from London by motorway with the same distance from Liverpool, and 85 miles from Bristol compared with 144 miles to Pembroke. Second, the Irish Tourist Board data indicate that 53 per cent of United Kingdom visitors to Ireland are destined for the south and west regions, to which Cork provides the ideal gateway.

Maybe the Minister's job is not so easy listening to me and you, Sir, may be getting bored stiff but I think I have an easy task proving the dreadful mistake the B & I made, a mistake which has been compounded by the approval of this Government and by their non-activity in ensuring that a sea link with the United Kingdom was re-established out of the south-west.

Another Cork Deputy contributed to this debate this morning. I will be charitable and say that pious platitudes are of no significance to the needs of Cork and the south-west region. In respect of visitors from the Irish Republic to the United Kingdom, the British authorities state that from 1980, 68 per cent of such visitors were from the south-east, the south-west and the Welsh regions. The service would draw natural support from the Munster area; but this Government, this B & I, tell all these people who know their job that these visitors must travel via Dún Laoghaire or stay at home.

I have here a detailed monthly analysis of car and passenger numbers travelling by sea to the United Kingdom in 1981, the latest figures available. I want to put on record the monthly passenger movement by the sea in 1981, a short time before the B & I pulled out. It would be significant if I dealt only with the months April to October, the peak period, the period which, if properly used, managed and serviced by the B & I, would more than provide sufficient revenue to maintain an all year service. The number of passengers in 1981 were: April, 204,000; May, 178,000; June, 207,000; July, 355,000; August, 520,000; September, 268,000; and October, 185,000. Associated accompanied cars in the same period were: April, 32,000; May, 28,000; June, 32,000; July, 55,000; August, 79,000; and September, 42,000.

I have read those figures as an indication of the case being made for the provision of a ferry link out of Cork. The projected figures of 21,700 cars and 107,000 passengers for the summer service are the equivalent of 12.7 per cent and 9.6 per cent, respectively, of the sea traffic between the Republic and the UK for the same period. To attain this market share the main thrust of the marketing effort will be to highlight the advantageous locations of both Swansea and Cork, the former in relation to the principal segment of the UK market, that is the south-east, and the latter in relation to the prime Cork-Kerry tourist region. It will stress that the route is tailored to meet the needs of the travelling public as opposed to a route designed to suit the operator.

The aspect of it that I have just mentioned of attracting additional passengers will not succeed if we are to consider only, as this Government seem to be doing through B & I and through this Bill, using a route designed to suit the operator. That is too limited, too confined in its context. The service from Cork to Swansea has direct access to the UK. Think of the motorway via Swansea and the countrywide rail access independent of demand generated by local ferry services. This service thus minimises long, tedious, expensive inland journeys to reach destinations. I have already referred to this. I am saying it because this report is with the Department, and why they have not reacted positively to the submission is beyond my understanding, limited though that may be. All the facts, figures and details are there.

If we want to attract business to a ferry we will have to get away from the idea that the ferry is run for the operator of the ferry, and that is what is contained in this Bill. We must take account of the people, the passengers whom we hope to attract to the ferry. Will anybody in the Government or amongst their advisers indicate how you sell a ferry service from Rosslare to the UK or from Dublin to the UK to the people of west Cork or the Dingle peninsula, those who are away and want to come back and those who are in those areas who might like to visit their sons and daughters and members of their families who had emigrated and who are again emigrating in recent times? Then think of the motor journey along mainly county roads that are falling apart at the seams, along secondary roads that have not been maintained to take account of the volume of traffic on them. We expect passengers to drive those unsuitable, rough miles to get to a ferry boat, to come up from Dingle or any part of the south-west, any part of Kerry, drive through Cork, go through Waterford and Wexford to Rosslare. We expect to sell that sort of ferry service to the people of the south-west after they have passed the emerald gateway now down at Ringaskiddy. What kind of thinking is this from Government and the Department? What kind of thinking is this from the people who advise the Government and Department to allow such a situation to occur?

Take the people who come in on the Dún Laoghaire ferry at night who, mind you, are very lucky if they catch the last train that night. It is so long since I travelled on it that I am not sure of the time but I think that it leaves at about 8.40 p.m. I have travelled on it with people who came off that ferry and were lying across their cases and their sleeping bags, travelling, travelling, travelling, and all to accommodate a short sea connection. There was not a cup of water available on that train for our tourists, for our own people returning via the ferry system organised by B & I with the approval of this Government. On one occasion when I was on that train — I think it is necessary to mention a specific event — but for the fact that the guard on the train had a flask of tea with him, somebody who had become ill would have had nothing available for comfort or refreshment and the Minister talks about selling this service to passengers of the B & I who are going south.

When that train gets to Limerick Junction, has the Minister considered how passengers for Limerick city will reach home that night? The Minister talks about the development of tourism, trade and general economic growth. What nonsense. Who does he think he is talking to when he produces a Second Stage contribution along those terms?

I regret it if the Minister of State had some difficulty in listening to what I have to say on this Bill and if that is why they are changing the guard. I do not intend to be personal but I must make my point.

The service we were supporting and emphasising should be there was, as I indicated, concentrating on the peak summer season and emphasis was placed on the importance of the travel trade to the success of the service. The significance of the B & I switch to Pembroke is central to the decision that was eventually reached. I could go into further detail about how the figures were juggled to prove that Cork was not viable if I had the time, but I have not.

I am concerned about the duty free goods that were available on the boats plying the Irish Sea and the handy little bookkeeping exercise that was done to show we were losing on the Cork route and that the Dublin route was the one to use. That was another reason given to pull out B & I. I might have time to go into that in more detail. We have the facts of a nice little hoo-ha of bookwork all to prove that a ferry out of Cork by B & I was not viable. My job, whether at cost to the Government or not, is to make a damn good effort to prove that the decision was incorrect and that we should have a ferry link with the UK out of Cork.

Let me talk about the facilities available at the ferries. I will talk about Swansea as distinct from Pembroke. The ferry complex at Swansea was completed in 1969 and comprises a tidal berth of 450 feet in length served by one of the largest shore bridges in Britain, 250 feet by 20 feet plus walkways which can be raised or lowered to a range of 42½ feet. Vessels drawing up to 16 feet can be accommodated on all tides and can lie on the berth most of the time throughout the year. Ample swinging space is provided. The terminal ashore has a large backup area, purpose built for freight, passengers and cars. Existing facilities include a fenced freight compound, car park, marshalling areas, reception, customs hall, passenger, baggage, etc.

Cork is a much larger and more sophisticated terminal, which the B & I decided to abandon. Cork has a much bigger ship capacity, 31 foot depth at low tide, a double lane link span and a modern terminal building equipped with catering facilities, a spacious car and freight compound and, in addition, a lay-by berth to cater for clashes of arrival times and unavoidable delays. We provided for everything in our design of that terminal. Nevertheless, the B & I by their decision pulled out of the terminal and the Government did not tell them to get back in, that the terminal was worth operating. They should have been told to run a service to the UK but the Government did not have the wit, nerve or political clout to tell the B & I what to do.

The B & I asked the Government for £38 million to service the port of Dublin and Rosslare, although I understand there is a doubt about retaining Rosslare. However, I do not want to take part in the rumour-mongering in regard to Rosslare because we are more concerned about the facts concerning Cork. The complex at Ringaskiddy has been paid for by the taxpayers over a number of years. Admittedly it was shelved for a short period by two Coalition Governments but we encouraged them to take the dust off it and get on with its development. When we came back into power we ensured that as much work as possible was done to finish the development of the terminal. We also brought in a plan for a road network which is far superior to anything at Pembroke. Therefore, the ferry service, so badly needed, should be operating from Ringaskiddy to Swansea.

To provide an adequate service on the Cork-Swansea route which assumes ten hours' sailing, a ship containing approximately 500 bays with car spaces in excess of 200 units would be required. Through our initiative and through these reports made out for the Government, we envisaged that the ship would be chartered for 98 days, including six days for delivery and redelivery before and after completing the service. We even went into fuel consumption which, of course, with the drop since in the price of energy and oil, would have an even more significant impact in the provision of a ferry service now. The fuel consumption of a chartered vessel would be equivalent to that of St. Patrick II, using mainly intermediate fuel oil rather than diesel. We had gone into that much detail to help the Government in their decision-making. The decision, however, did not go our way because the influence of other areas and people bore too strongly against the Cork area, even two years ago, and the bias against Cork continues. We even suggested that catering and duty free facilities would be supplied on board in accordance with normal practice.

Section 4 of the report deals with the finance required in order to operate the proposed service and on the basis of the assumptions underlying the financial projections which are on pages 8 to 10. It is hardly necessary for me to read them out when this information is already known to the Minister, the Government and the Department. Nevertheless, it appears that a maximum funding requirement of £569,000 will arise, peaking at the end of June. That referred to the year of the report. It is proposed that the promoters of the venture will provide up to 50 per cent of the peak requirements by way of equity and loan finances in the initial stages of the venture. How much more do the Government want from Cork? Those people were prepared to put up 50 per cent and yet the Minister said last week that when Cork got off its behind the Government would respond.

The day is gone when the Minister will continue to insult the people of Cork without a response from Deputies in the area, especially on this side of the House. We put up with that for so long in a peaceful way in the hope that encouragement and conciliation, rather than confrontation or attack would work but the type of insult to which I referred will not be tolerated any longer. The Taoiseach further insulted me by saying in answer to a question here that he had no involvement in the saving of Egans, Patrick Street but that it was essential to keep a coffee shop in Dublin open. If that is their attitude, our kid glove approach up to now is over. It will not be the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog from now on. I was at pains to restrain myself in the face of the insult offered by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, to the people of Cork in regard to responding to their needs.

I have outlined what we gave the Government in relation to a ferry and what we prepared for them at our own expense in Cork. We got commitments from people, and the Minister of State and the Government will rue the day that such a remark was made. It is said that an animal known as the elephant never forgets. I can assure this Government that I know a "Lyon" that does not forget. The report goes on:

It is proposed that the balance of funding be provided by financial institutions and that promoters could be repaid their contribution after completion of the service.

It should be noted that the timing of cash inflows and outflows within individual months could have the effect of greatly varying the projected figures. Accordingly, funding facilities somewhat in excess of 50% of peak projected requirement will be sought.

When it was sought, what was the response? This Government hesitated and did everything but what was required of them to encourage initiative, and when the commitment came we had banner headlines from the Government Deputies about a marvellous effort. About a month ago that was again referred to as an enormous boost to Cork, but it came so late that it was no use to us. The "Lyon" has forgotten something but he has been reminded. When we were trying to get this ferry service restored to Cork — and I have an exact photostat copy of what was said for use in the next election campaign — one Deputy still in this House, a member of Fine Gael, indicated——

Is he still a member?

He is still a member but is rarely seen here.

Give us a hint. Is he from the country or the city?

A Cork Deputy who was Lord Mayor at the time, felt so strongly about the efforts being made by all of us in association with all the groups in Cork to provide a ferry that he indicated that if the ferry was not provided he would resign. We have it in black and white and we will be showing it a few times at the chapel gate and reprinting it in the local bible. He did not resign.

As Lord Mayor, he said.

He did neither. He resigned neither as Lord Mayor nor as Deputy. He is still here and we still have not got the ferry. That sort of empty commitment has not gone unnoticed. Let other regions of the country do what is best for themselves. I may seem to be parochial but I am not forgetting the rest of the country as far as this Bill is concerned. The Bill is short enough. I have the Free Ports Bill here to which I was going to refer.

The Deputy will get around to it.

I will get to it, and I have a good one on that too. This is a little Bill with not a lot in it. This is no longer a company that should carry a title indicating that it is representative of the whole country. It is not.

I want to refer to another document, an apraisal of the entire matter of the B & I and so forth, prepared jointly by the Cork Harbour Commissioners and Associated British Ports, Swansea & Port Talbot Docks entitled, "Swansea-Cork, the Emerald Gateway". In the introduction it is stated:

This presentation is probably unique in at least one respect. Two port authorities in different countries had sought to identify a marketing opportunity for a profitable shipping service and have then handed over their marketing information to third parties to exploit the project.

The reason for this is not lack of faith in carrying theory into practice but an awareness that, whilst ports are best operated by experienced port authorities, shipping services are best operated by experienced shipping companies. Both ports have already backed their judgment by heavy investment in terminals and associated facilities — and are prepared to consider further investment in conjunction with an appropriate ship operator.

That ship operator should have been the B & I but for their abandoning of the ferry link from Cork to the UK. The introduction goes on:

Even at this stage of the presentation, it cannot be stressed too much that the ports concerned are not interested in a "lame-duck" operation, struggling from crisis to crisis, but in a fully viable project which will bring profit both to the operator and themselves, and produce a standard of service to satisfy the customers of the service.

That is the kernel of the problem. We are neglecting the standard of service needed to satisfy the customers and that is a mistake. I will come later to the amounts of money they lost from 1978 onwards. The major aim is the provision of a ferry from Cork to the UK. The age old problem for the shipowner is whether to go for the shortest sea crossing, thereby minimising his costs, or to locate his service as near as possible to where his main flows of cargo are generated and destined. That is the key element of this operation. To be fair to the shipowners, they have to look at that aspect. Like most things in life, the best answer is often a sensible compromise.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn