Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar

Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Dec 1991

Vol. 414 No. 9

B & I Line Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.

NEW SECTION.

Debate resumed on amendment No.3:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—Where the Minister considers it is necessary for the public interest, he may make an order requiring the Company to maintain any passenger or cargo service which it operates at the date of the coming into effect of this Act.".

—(Deputy Byrne.)

Mr. Rabbitte

I gave an undertaking to my colleagues that after the intervention for lunch we would go straight to a vote on this amendment. If the House is agreeable, it is my wish to follow that course of action.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

Mr. Yates

I want to make just one point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Gerry O'Sullivan wishes to make a point.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I asked the Minister whether he would have the agreement in relation to the £30 million investment lodged in the Labour Court. The Minister did not reply to that question.

Mr. Yates

I was not going to make a further contribution if a vote carried over into the sos time, but I do have one point to make.

The Minister made certain remarks about my support for amendment No.3. He said that the new philosophy in which I was indulging would come home to haunt me and so forth. All I can say is that by the same logic if I am seen having a drink in the Dáil bar I hope that I shall not be accused of being an alcoholic. The Minister is very quick to seize on a minor point and exaggerate it beyond all proportion in the debate.

I wish to say to the Minister — this privateer, marketeer Minister who has an ideological bent — that his footprints are all over decisions taken in relation to air routes between Ryanair and Aer Lingus. I would ask the Minister, please do not lecture me about State interference in relation to strategic decisions in the national interest, some of which I would support, because of the retention of certain routes. Those same arguments apply equally to shipping.

Fine Gael Members will support amendment No.3 because we want to ensure, in relation to the central corridor and the southern corridor, that both those depending on the tourism sector and those depending on the industrial sector to get their freight cargo in and out of this country can rely on the provision of future services. The Minister has acknowledged that he can give no such guarantee.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, I think that when there is a discussion on matters connected with the water I would discourage the Minister from following you into the sky. I hope that he is not going to talk about aeronautics.

Mr. S. Brennan

No, I am not, except to say that a different concept is involved. Amendment No.3, on which we are now proposing to vote, asks that the Minister have the power to order that a particular route be maintained.

Mr. Yates

Order the company.

Mr. S. Brennan

Yes, to maintain a route. The Deputy's analogy with airlines is not accurate. There is no legislation that allows me to order an airline to maintain a particular route. I do not have that authority.

Mr. Yates

What about Derry?

Mr. S. Brennan

That issue could certainly be discussed with the company involved.

Mr. Yates

There was another route maintained. Does that ring a bell?

Mr. S. Brennan

What legislation do I have? There is no legislation.

I do have another point to make. I want to be fair to the Deputy and respond to questions. The Deputy asked about the auditors of Stokes Kennedy Crowley. I have here a letter that Stokes Kennedy Crowley have suggested I put on the record. They point out that they are somewhat concerned about references made in the Dáil to potential conflict of interest on their part as auditors of B & I and also Stokes Kennedy Crowley Corporate Finance as advisers to the Minister on the sale of B & I. Stokes Kennedy Crowley would like me to put the following points on the record on their behalf:

Although Stokes Kennedy Crowley Corporate Finance Limited is wholly owned by Stokes Kennedy Crowley, it operates, to all intents and purposes, as an autonomous business.

We have very strict ethical guidelines in relation to the work which we undertake and this ensures that Chinese walls exist whenever there is any potential conflict situation.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland produce a comprehensive Ethical Guideline for its members. This guideline does not see any conflict in a situation of this nature.

It should be pointed out that the responsibility of the auditors is to the shareholders of the company to whom they make their annual report. In acting in the sale of B & I we were also acting on behalf of the shareholder of the company i.e. the Exchequer.

The letter goes on to state that the company understand that the reference to their position was based on some comment or briefings supplied by the board of B & I to a particular Deputy and that if that is the case they would like to put the record straight — some of the language used is not helpful.

Mr. Yates

Remember the Chinese wall for Irish Helicopters?

Mr. Rabbitte

Who is the Deputy that you would not refer to then, Minister?

Mr. Yates

He was referring to me.

Mr. S. Brennan

If Deputies insist, Deputy Yates is mentioned in the letter.

Mr. Rabbitte

Was it referring to Deputy Yates?

Mr. Yates

I am happy to remember the Chinese wall in relation to NCB and Irish Helicopters.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Yates was looking for this question at 1.30 p.m.

Mr. S. Brennan

I have answered the Deputy's questions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These beautiful tete-a-tete are very time-consuming.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

I asked the Minister a question but he did not answer me.

Mr. S. Brennan

I am sorry, Deputy, but I do not see the need to lodge the agreement with the Labour Court. I recognise the spirit of what is wanted but there is a signed agreement in that regard.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

So it will not be lodged?

Mr. S. Brennan

I have had no request from the union movement to lodge it——

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

And you will not take a request from me?

Mr. S. Brennan

——and I did not propose it to them. It was such a difficult and laborious job to get the agreement that I would like to let those sleeping dogs lie if I may.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 68.

Tá

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Sherlock and Gilmore; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy.

Question declared lost.

NEW SECTION.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a typographical error on page 2 in the second last line of the definition of "benefit" in subsection (3) of amendment No. 4. The word "service" should appear after the word "during". Amendment No. 4 is in the names of Deputies Byrne and Rabbitte, and amendments Nos. 9, 11, 15, 17 and 18 are related. Therefore, these amendments may be taken together for discussion purposes.

Mr. Byrne

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—(1) Where there is any change in the ownership structure of the Company, each employee shall hold his/her office or employment on the same terms and under the same conditions as applied to his/her contract of employment immediately prior to any such change, and the said terms and conditions shall not be less favourable to him/her than those prevailing immediately prior to such change, save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with the trade unions or staff associations representing such employees.

(2) Until such time as the scales of pay and the terms and conditions of employment and any other benefits, including rights (including rights under a pension or superannuation scheme of the Company) and privileges, obligations and any other arrangement applying to employees are varied resultant from negotiations with the trade unions concerned, the conditions which prior to any change in the ownership structure had been negotiated on their behalf and applying at the time of the change, shall continue to apply to them save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with the trade unions representing such employees.

(3) In this section:

`benefit' means any pension, annuity, lump sum, gratuity or other like payment given on retirement or payable after retirement in respect of past service or on or in connection with death during or after retirement;

`Company' includes any subsidiary of the Company.".

This amendment is of key importance. It attempts to give to the workforce of B & I, some security for the future and guarantees in the area of jobs, rates of pay and terms and conditions of employment. It is an attempt to give recognition for the excellence of the input made, particularly since 1987, by the workforce.

By way of preamble to my contribution on this amendment, I wish to put on record the very important observations made by Mr. Alex Spain, chairman of the B & I Line, in a letter to his staff, who had been so badly let down by the Minister, informing them that the line was to be sold. He stated in this letter as follows:

In the first place, the Board would like to record its appreciation to all members of staff for the outstanding efforts made to secure the future of the Company. The remarkable progress made under the Five Year Viability Plan is in no small part due to the dedication and commitment of management and staff. The commitment and sacrifice made by those within the Company over recent years had turned B & I into a profitable company with the ability to develop into a strong Irish ferry group. The fact that many of the key elements which will ensure future growth and success have already been achieved is a matter that must be recorded at this time.

Since the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications announced the Government's intention to end support for the Viability Plan and sell the Company the primary concern of the Board has been to seek to ensure a satisfactory future for the Company and its staff.

I do not know Mr. Alex Spain. Deputy Rabbitte does, because he negotiated that five-year plan. One can clearly see in that letter a heartfelt appreciation and recognition of the credit due to the staff and management for having achieved in a five-year period a turnabout in the company which was unthinkable some years ago. Those sentiments have also been expressed by the chief executive of the B & I, Mr. Jim Kennedy. It is important to refer to what Mr. Kennedy had to say in the context of guaranteeing jobs and providing proper terms and conditions of employment for the workers. He said that freight to the continent had doubled. The number of cars carried was up by 50 per cent and the ro-ro freight was up by 75 per cent. The article continues:

"The amount of things which came together in just five weeks was amazing", he said of his involvement in the consortium preparing the offer which included some of the group's trade unions, FAS, AIB Capital Markets, two Danish shipping companies and Unity Trust, a merchant bank established by the Trade Union Congress in the UK.

Unfortunately this is now history. The Minister ruthlessly rejected the management-staff buy-out proposal and they felt angry and betrayed. I want to pay tribute to the excellent work done by Mr. Alex Spain, Mr. Jim Kennedy and the staff and management of the B & I Line. It was with those sentiments in mind that we put down our amendment which seeks to ensure the Minister gives due recognition to the workers of B & I.

I should like to pose a few questions to the Minister. I am not too sure of the intent of the Minister's amendment No. 15. Does his amendment contain a clause which will extend the provisions of Statutory Instrument 306/80 — European Communities (Safeguarding of Employees' Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations, 1980 — to cover seamen who are specifically excluded at present?

Does the Minister's amendment contain a clause which provides that the B & I pension scheme cannot be used for any purpose other than to provide and enhance pension benefits for members and that no surplus may be taken out of the fund or the funds dissolved or merged, save with the agreement of 75 per cent of the workers of the respective funds? Does the amendment provide that trade union representatives shall be appointed to the board of ICG as they were appointed to the board of the B & I Line? This kind of industrial democracy between workers and management has been praised by Alex Spain among others. I hope all these issues which are covered by our amendment are also covered by the Minister's amendment No. 15.

Mr. Yates

I acknowledge that the Minister's amendment No. 15 is identical to a section in the Sugar Company Act. However, a number of points require clarification. This amendment, which is the only amendment put down by the Minister in relation to the pension scheme, seems to go only as far as ensuring the continuity of benefits to present and future pensioners of B & I. As we know, the pension fund has a very substantial surplus. Indeed I understand the surplus is so substantial that the pension fund may lose its tax exemption status in the UK where many of these funds are invested. Therefore, this gives rise to the question of whether this surplus can be used for purposes required by ICG? ICG's view is that if a pension fund is in deficit the employer is responsible for filling that deficit and if it is in surplus they get the benefits.

Opposition parties have put down amendments in regard to pension funds which will not now be debated as we have less than half an hour left. We need to ensure that the surplus funds will not be used for, say, the purpose of buying off, in terms of severance pay, a few hundred workers in the B & I. That would be wrong. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the Minister amends his amendment to the extent that it provides there must be a ballot of 75 per cent of the beneficiaries of the pension fund so that they will have a say over the use of their funds in the future. It is simply not enough to say that employees will have the same benefits because there is a surplus and there will be an increasing surplus.

The second question which arises is whether Irish Ferries will continue the same pension scheme — the 7 per cent employee contribution and the 7 per cent employer contribution — or will they seek to renegotiate it? I understand it is proposed to merge the pension fund with the pension fund for the existing employees of Irish Ferries. Will there be a cross subsidy from one worker to another to the benefit of the employees of Irish Ferries? Such a move would be wrong. I should like the Minister to clarify these points. Does he not agree that his amendment No. 15 deals only with the benefits and does not refer to the protection of surplus funds. I should point out that the recent Maxwell controversy in the motherland which we slavishly follow, Britain, has shown that its laws in relation to pension funds have been wholly defective in that pension funds were openly raided by the management of that company for questionable purposes. I should like the Minister to answer those questions which relate to the inadequacy of his amendment in terms of the pension fund and its surplus.

I wish to refer to the effect of amendment No. 15 and what we are seeking to achieve. The amendment states that every person who immediately before the disposal date of the shares was an employee of the company shall, on the disposal date, enjoy the same rights and be subject to the same obligations as he enjoyed and was subject to immediately before the disposal date. Can the Minister clarify in those circumstances what will happen to the material I have and which was circulated in the negotiations between the FIE, who represented Irish Ferris, and the B & I workers this summer? I want to give a brutal example of what may happen to clerical staff. As I said, the Minister's amendment proposes that on the disposal date of the shares the staff shall enjoy the same obligations as they enjoyed and were subject to immediately before the disposal date.

What happens to those in the groupage, planning, claims and pensions and printing departments and the regional office in the UK which will be transferred to Holyhead? The ICG proposal is simply to close all these departments as well as the customs clearance section and to reorganise a number of aspects in relation to computerisation. What will happen to passenger and freight reservations, invoicing and ticketing? What will happen to the staff who are doing the work manually at present? There will also be computerisation for container movement and catering control, office automation and management information. What does the amendment mean to people who are faced with getting their P45?

Throughout the documentation from the ICG is the classic phrase: "rates of pay and allowances will be revised to reflect a competitive rate for the job done." It applies to all sectors. What is a competitive rate for the job done? What if the competitive rate for the job is a lesser rate than the rate which applied before the disposal date? In other words, a series of grades of workers will have their increments and grades reduced or will be dismissed. What is their protection? This did not happen in relation to Greencore; I may be wrong but I am not aware of wholesale rationalisation proposals in relation to that company and the Thurles closure had already gone through. This is wholesale butchering of jobs.

Arising from the "due diligence" proposal of ICG, there is a whole reorganisation of labour which seems to be totally contradictory of what the Minister and Members are trying to do. What about Dublin Port and its operation? At present there are ten people working in the car ferry ticket checking section in the B & I, it is now proposed that there will not be anybody in that section, that the work will be carried out by administrative staff.

The groupage unit will also be closed and will not require checkers. How can their rights be protected? In relation to the jobs of Dublin terminal port workers, the rates of pay will be revised to reflect the competitive rate for the job to be done. There are also statements about terms and conditions, manning levels to complete all work, full availability to work 39 hours before additional payment, flexibility to work on any number of vessels, rates of pay to include flexible working hours to cover lunch, tea and dinner breaks and flexible manning levels for overtime. There is also a reference to flexibility on work assignments during working days, the present ro-ro customs production to be covered by ro-ro producers and general store terms and conditions to apply. There is also a whole series of conditions in relation to shore staff. However, I cannot see how there is any protection for the workers under these proposals. There is a dichotomy here which I cannot reconcile with the facts and perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter.

It is significant that when the Minister sent this Bill to the printers it did not contain the proposal that is now in amendment No. 15, he was not prepared to give the B & I workers a Christmas present of any protection. This is a reflection on his neglect, disregard and lack of interest in the rights of workers of the B & I and their families. He had to have his arm twisted to include the amendment.

Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that all redundancies will be voluntary, either on an early retirement scheme or a voluntary redundancy scheme? It would be a very positive gesture if the Minister could give a solemn undertaking to the House, as these people are moving out of the public sector, that he has extracted a commitment for ICG that they will all be voluntary redundancies. Like Deputy Byrne, I should like Statutory Instrument 306 to include seamen. Will the pension fund surplus, as opposed to the pensioners' rights, be controlled by way of ballot? How can the Minister reconcile his alleged protection for staff with the wholesale butchery of not only personnel but whole sections in Dublin Port? Will the Minister give an undertaking that the terms of Statutory Instrument 306 will apply to all staff and that any redundancies are on a voluntary basis?

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

These amendments are a classic example of why we should not rush legislation. Very shortly the Bill will come into law and we will not be able to do any more about it. I opposed the guillotining of this Bill because it concerns people. The Minister's amendment is welcome but I also tabled a substantial amendment which I should like to read to the House but I have no intention of wasting any more time.

The points outlined by Deputy Byrne and Deputy Yates are very important and they must be clarified. The Minister said yesterday he intended to introduce an amendment to the Bill on the rights of employees as agreed with ICTU and the B & I group of unions. He did not mention workers' representation on the board and I assume that option is no longer available to the workforce. If it is not, the same conditions do not apply but the same conditions should apply even though they are being taken over. I am also very concerned about pension funds because the ordinary people in the B & I are well aware of the situation and are very worried about it. They feel it is their money in the sense that they have contributed to the scheme and built it up substantially over the years. They are fearful that the surplus will be utilised by the new company to spend as they wish. They feel they have not been given specific guarantees in the Bill or in the agreement. Perhaps pensions will be guaranteed for present and future employees but we are talking about a surplus which, apparently, is in a very healthy state. In the event of a takeover or a buy-out there are always redundancies, changes in work practices and reorganisation. I know that redundancies have been allowed for but I am talking about the people who will be left to keep the flag of the new company flying.

I voice my concern to the Minister on behalf of those people this evening. I would ask the Minister to look again at his amendment because it is vague and does not really get into the nitty gritty. I appreciate everything cannot be written into an amendment. In any case this agreement was rushed and probably it bought time and industrial peace for the time being. As the company develops, we will see practices developing which never existed previously. There will obviously be a response from the workforce and the arguments and agreements of unions will be bandied about. We should have specifics in regard to the pension surplus, which is very important, and the right of workers to be represented on the board and other matters with which Deputy Yates dealt in detail and of which present employees are not aware. At present B & I employees do not know what conditions will exist when the company is taken over. I have received many telephone calls to this effect from people who are in the dark and they rely on their representatives to do the job for them. We have a duty in this House to look after the workers of B & I. This is one of the reasons we felt there should not be a guillotine on this important legislation. In this legislation we are talking about the livelihoods of many workers who have contributed enormously to the turn around in this company and which now has a future over which there is a big question mark.

Despite the fact that an agreement was signed yesterday, will the B & I have representatives on the board? Will their conditions be exactly the same as before? Will their pensions be safeguarded? I would request the Minister to respond to those queries. I fear this legislation has bought peace for the period between now and the new year. I hope it will be lasting because otherwise there will a major upheaval in labour relations and in relation to the management buy out. When responding perhaps the Minister would clarify those points.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister read into the record of this House the requests to him by the trade unions yesterday — and I welcome that — but the fact remains that trade unions representing up to 1,000 staff in B & I had no alternative. Given the views expressed in this House by the Minister and the Bill introduced by the Government, which incorporated none of the amendments about which we are talking and went no way towards dealing with the needs, aspirations and future job security and conditions of employment of the staff, they were left with no alternative. The trade unions did what they felt had to be done for their staff. We in this House are asked how, as legislators, we can incorporate into that legislation some control and safeguards. On the basis of the amendments before us many safeguards are required by the staff who over three years have changed the fortunes of the B & I into a most attractive proposition. Those guarantees cannot and will not be enshrined in the legislation.

I mentioned on Second Stage that I had seen a viable semi-State organisation moved out of the semi-State sector into private enterprise. We were told in great documents — the same kind of documents as we are talking about now — that the conditions of employment, job security and pension rights of the staff would be maintained. When the hive-off took place of the Spa Road works to Van Hool McArdle their conditions were not preserved. The people in B & I are going into a new environment. We are talking about ICG and their document, where it is stated that there will be a phased reduction of permanent staff by 253. How does this document and the Minister's amendment deal with this scenario? They say in their document they will give a commitment that there will be no involuntary redundancy provided they can get sufficient people to leave on a voluntary basis. On the basis of this legislation can the Minister give a commitment to this House that there will be no involuntary redundancy?

What is the position of maintenance staff in B & I? What will be their status and their role? I have no doubt as soon as this legislation is passed that a section of the staff will be hived off into another section. Can the Minister give those commitments in relation to staffing arrangements and also to pensions? It is important when we are talking about a general pension fund that he gives a commitment — other Deputies have referred to this — in regard to the surplus of assets, that it would require a 75 per cent majority vote of the members of that pension fund before it could be used for any purpose. I do not think that is an unreasonable suggestion.

The board structure includes representatives of the staff. An area of great concern relates to the admission of new employees to membership of the fund. Rule 2 deals with that matter. Membership is confined to full time permanent outdoor staff, employees of B & I Line plc, who fulfil certain age and service conditions, although these conditions may be waived by the committee at their discretion. A new owner of B & I Line plc could transfer some of its employees into the employment of B & I Line plc. Under the provisions of rule 17 the committee, with the consent of the board of the B & I Line, may augment the pension payable to any member of the fund. In fact, the admission of new members into the fund requires the consent of the board. Can the Minister give a commitment that we will have members on the board?

There are many queries concerning how the Bill refers to the admission of new employees. The Bill also deals very clearly with the funding of early retirement benefits. There is a number of grey areas which concern the staff. The Bill and the proposed ministerial amendments cannot generate any confidence in the people who are being affected by this transfer into the private sector. It is scandalous that the Minister and the Government are putting this detailed legislation through the House without enabling the House to deal adequately with this delicate but important legislation. At the end of the day the new owners of B & I will point to the commitments in the legislation and will adhere to them. This is bad legislation which does nothing to enhance the future of the employees of B & I who have done their utmost over the last three years to make this a viable organisation. Because of their efforts and achievements other people want to get their hands on the company. I am sorry to say that this is a bad day for them.

Mr. S. Brennan

I disagree completely. This Bill gives the company and their employees a real opportunity in the future. Statutory Instrument 306 applies, but we have gone beyond that in our agreement with the unions. Statutory Instrument 306 does not apply to seamen, and as we cannot amend EC regulations unilaterally our amendments cover all of the staff, including seamen. The unions were satisfied that the arrangement negotiated is better than using Statutory Instrument 306.

Most Deputies have welcomed amendment No. 15, which we have put forward. I pay tribute to the ICTU and to the B & I group of unions and to my officials who worked extremely hard to secure this agreement. I thank them for their patience. While holding to their disagreements with me they were able to meet us all half way and we have secured industrial peace and a better future.

With regard to pension funds, I worked with the ICTU in this matter and we laid out exactly where we stood and that the ICG would have to abide by that. I do not want to be provocative, but the question of pension funds surpluses has been mentioned. The management-staff buy out consortium offer hinged on the use of £6 million for the B & I pension funds.

Mr. Ryan

It was their money.

Mr. S. Brennan

The £6 million of the pension funds was earmarked as part of the purchase arrangement for the B & I, with the agreement of the trustees.

Mr. Yates

What will happen to those funds now?

Mr. S. Brennan

The B & I pension funds are subject to general pension legislation. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to start tinkering with that in this Bill. Under my amendment the continuity of existing pension rights is preserved and the agreement signed with ICTU and the B & I unions enshrine a commitment to obtain from ICG an undertaking that ICG will fully abide by the current trust deeds and rules of the B & I pension fund, as disclosed to the ICG during their due diligence exercise. There are very tight controls on the use of pension funds in these rules and in the deeds of trust of pension funds, and ICG have agreed to fully abide by these rules in the deeds of trust of pension funds. They will have to do that.

With regard to Deputy Ryan's point about 75 per cent, in general terms the legal advice emphasises the need to satisfy the trustees and actuaries but that any action taken in relation to the surplus on the funds would not adversely affect the interests of the existing members. In addition, in some cases the approval of the committee of management and 75 per cent of the members of the relevant fund are required to approve changes and that any alteration of B & I terms and conditions of superannuation currently requires ministerial approval. The 75 per cent is there in some cases, but I take the Deputy's point.

With regard to the question of workers participation, ICG have indicated that, subject to successful negotiations on other issues, they would be prepared to give positive consideration to the proposals which they have received on the whole question of worker democracy. It is recognised by ICG that there is a wealth of experience in the B & I which should be tapped. It is simply a matter of finding the best mechanism for doing that. The Workers Participation Act will not apply once this legislation is enacted. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress contains some suggestions in this area. Once the ICG take charge, they have undertaken to give very serious consideration to the proposals on worker democracy. I would be surprised if the ICTU and the group of unions were not a bit more comforted on that issue in view of the fact that they have signed this agreement with me.

The whole question of rationalisation is a matter for negotiations between the ICG and the trade union movement. The same conditions applied to the management and staff buy out. Everybody who looked at the company with a view to buying it sought substantial redundancies in all departments. The MSBO consortium this time last year sent me a figure of 300 redundancies——

Mr. Byrne

That did not have the support of the unions.

Mr. Yates

Will all redundancies be voluntary?

Mr. S. Brennan

I will come to that. This year the management-staff buy-out in their revised bid put the figure at 150 but commented that it could go up by another 100 to the same level proposed by ICG. It is not fair to pretend that the workers would have a magic wand which could keep them over and above the number Irish Ferries could keep. It was much of a muchness in terms of numbers at the end of the day. Irish Ferries have undertaken to make every effort to ensure that all the redundancies are voluntarily undertaken. That is as far as I can go. I cannot absolutely guarantee that all redundancies would be voluntary but every effort will be made to make sure that redundancies are voluntary. I hope that will be the case. With the kind of goodwill with which we put together this agreement, B & I and ICG will be able to ensure that at the end of the day all redundancies will be voluntary. I look forward to that being the case.

I join with Deputies who paid tribute to the staff of B & I. I said here on the very first day that they had been through a rough and difficult time. I appreciate the work they have put into the company.

Now that we are concluding this debate, I express the hope that, when all the heat is behind us, this new firm will set sail in the knowledge that they have a great future, with optimism and that everybody involved will try to make the company work now that we have taken this decision.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time has come to put the question.

Mr. Yates

It should be recorded that this debate has been wholly unsatisfactory in relation to the time made available.

An Ceann Comhairle

In respect of item No. 14, the B & I Line Bill——

Mr. Yates

There has been no Report Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, Deputies, I am putting the question.

Mr. Yates

We have only dealt with four amendments.

Mr. Ryan

It is a disgrace.

Mr. Yates

It is jackbook democracy of the worst kind.

Mr. Byrne

He has decided to hand over the company.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 5 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day.

Mr. S. Brennan

I saved the company, Deputy.

Mr. Yates

Do not start believing your own propaganda.

Mr. Byrne

Two hundred and fifty men will lose their jobs.

An Ceann Comhairle

Interrupting the Chair in this fashion is grossly disorderly.

Mr. S. Brennan

Unlike Irish Shipping, it is safe.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, Deputies. The question is: "That the amendment set down by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications for Committee Stage is hereby made to the Bill, that the sections undisposed of, the Schedule and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee and the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 65.

Tá

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin.

Question declared carried.

Mr. Rabbitte

Notwithstanding the vehemence which some of us felt towards this Bill, we would like to wish the new company well in the years ahead.

Barr