asked the Minister for Communications if he has received a concrete proposal for the acquisition of ICL by B & I and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I have acknowledged on a number of occasions the importance which I attach to the maintenance of the direct ferry link with the Continent and I can assure the Deputy that subject to the many constraints involved I will make every effort to facilitate the continuation of that link.

Am I to take it there has been a concrete proposal in the Minister's Department for the acquisition of ICL by B&I? In what shape and in what terms are those proposals made?

I do not have any specific proposals before my Department in relation to the acquisition of ICL.

Did the Minister's Department sponsor or agree to a study being made as to the feasibility of B&I acquiring ICL?

I do not think it is a secret that B&I are aware that the ICL company are up for sale. It would be natural for them to see if they should get involved and I understand that B&I have made inquiries and studied the proposal. However, as of now I do not have any formal proposal before me for approval in that respect and I am not certain that I will get one.

Did the firm of consultants, Zeus, whose fees are being paid by the Minister in his Department, study this proposal or were other consultants paid for studying the feasibility of B&I purchasing ICL?

The answer is that I do not know. That is an internal matter for B&I.

Is the Minister responsible or not for paying the fees of Zeus Consultants as distinct from whatever fees are paid by the B&I board? If he is, surely he should be able to tell the House if Zeus Consultants examined this proposition or not.

That seems to be a separate question.

The Deputy is experienced enough to know that a Minister is responsible for the day to day affairs of his own Department but is not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the semi-State bodies under his Department. Therefore, he cannot answer to the House for matters he is not responsible for.

I agree that is the truth, but I am asking him what Zeus Consultants, who are being paid by his Department and not by the semi-State body, are doing? In the brief from the Minister were they asked to consider the proposal that B&I should purchase ICL?

The B&I company, the chief executive of which is the nominee of Zeus, is run by the board of B&I under a mandate given by me. Day to day matters are dealt with by B&I and not for me, or this House. That is the way semi-State companies have been running and for very good reasons.

I will allow Deputy Wilson one further supplementary.

The amount of information I got from my other questions is frustrating the whole purpose of Question Time. Will the Minister tell the House the amount Zeus Consultants are being paid by the taxpayer? Are they being paid specifically for advising B&I as to whether it is a feasible proposition that B&I should purchase ICL or not?

Decisions on such questions are a matter for the board of B&I. The chairman and the chief executive, who is a nominee of Zeus, have to put proposals to the board and get their consent. It is only when there are board proposals that I hear about them and there are not formal proposals before me.

And the Minister does not get advice from Zeus Consultants independent of the B&I? The Minister is paying them money and he is entitled to get advice from them. We are entitled to find out what that advice is.

Channels have been agreed and we try to stick to them as best we can.