asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he will make a statement on developments within B & I since he last reported to the Dáil on the matter; if a recommendation has yet been received from the board of the company; if a final decision has yet been made by the Government on the future of the company; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

16.

asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport the present position regarding the B & I shipping line.

17.

asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport the present position regarding the talks on the future of the B & I shipping line; and if the Government has satisfied itself that the company can operate on a self-financing basis.

30.

asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport his intentions in relation to B & I; whether he has intervened, or will intervene personally in the negotiations on the problems in the company; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

32.

asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he will outline the Government's plans to maintain a strategic State shipping operation for both passengers and cargo on the Irish Sea routes to and from Great Britain.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 14, 16, 17, 30 and 32 together. I welcome the opportunity presented by these question to inform the House of the action taken by the Government on Friday last in relation to the future of B & I. Deputies may recall that in May last I directed the board of the B & I to submit to me as soon as possible a plan of action, for implementation in the autumn, aimed at restoring the company to viability. I stressed to the board and to the B & I unions whom I also met at that time the necessity for an agreed plan. Additional equity was made available from the Exchequer to give the company time to produce the necessary plan.

In November the B & I board submitted a five-year plan of action to me which had been accepted by the majority of the company's workforce. The board informed me that they were unable to recommend implementation of the plan in the absence of agreement with the union representing marine officers. Subsequent further negotiations between the company's management and representatives of the marine officers culminated last Friday in acceptance by the marine officers of revised proposals which provided for the necessary contribution from that section of the workforce to the board's plan of action. The board of the B & I confirmed to me last Friday that their plan had now got the across-the-board support of the workforce and the board recommended the plan to Government for support.

Having noted the plan of action and its across-the-board support by the workforce the Government agreed, on the basis of the plan, to provide the company with up to £11 million in Exchequer equity in 1988. The Government also decided to review the position not later than the autumn of 1988 on the basis of detailed comparisons of the company's performance against forecast.

I emphasised in a statement last Friday and I repeat now that the company's future cannot be assured by Government support alone but is equally dependent on full co-operation by all concerned in the provision of a continuous, reliable and efficiet service. I recognise the significant concessions made by the company's workforce in agreeing the plan of action with B & I management and I trust that the combined efforts of board, management and staff will ensure that the new strategy of a slimmed down B & I will help the company to achieve a cost-efficient operation, to exploit new business opportunities and to provide the low cost shipping services required for the development of trade, tourism and general economic growth.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the concessions made by the B & I workforce are unprecedented and represent a major dimension in terms of the future of the company? Will he ensure, by way of reciprocation, that the Government give a very firm commitment, in the medium to long term, to the continued viability of this company?

I have already put on the record of this House my appreciation of the efforts made by the group of unions to reach agreement on a plan for a future viable B & I. I take this opportunity to reiterate what I said at that time. The second part of the Deputy's supplementary related to a commitment. In the severe financial circumstances obtaining at present I do not think there is any greater commitment than a Government decision allowing for the provision of this £11 million in equity for the B & I.

All Members of the House, I am sure, would like to compliment everybody concerned on this arrangement; common sense prevailed and a very mature attitude was adopted by the unions in particular. Can the Minister give us some idea of the extent of the debts hanging over the B & I shipping company at present? Can he confirm for us that the vessel The Connacht is being sold to pay for the resultant redundancies? Can he also inform us approximately what will be the losses of the B & I in the current year? Furthermore, can he give us the best possible estimate of those losses? Also, how does he envisage the losses working out for 1988? Does he feel that £11 million will be sufficient to carry the company over for 1988?

I appreciate what the Deputy has said about the mature attitude adopted by the unions. Off the top of my head I would say that the debts amount to something between £40 million and £50 million. It is difficult to assess what will be the losses for this year. In May 1987, when I put forward the original proposal to management and unions, the Government made provision for up to £8 million in equity of which £5 million has been drawn down as of this date. I could not give the Deputy a rounded figure for the losses in 1987. No doubt they will become available and I will supply them to the Deputy.

A figure of £14 million was mentioned. Will the Minister say, if that is in or about correct?

I have that figure in the back of my head but I am slightly cagey when answering questions lest I wander into inaccuracies.

The other part of my supplementary related to the sale of the vessel The Connacht.

That decision will fall to be taken by the board of the B & I in the reconstituted, restructured company. I will not have any say in that matter.

Can the Minister, along with the B & I, ensure the provision of proper berthing and landing facilities at Holyhead where I understand a less than satisfactory situation obtains, thereby ensuring that the B & I receive a fair crack of the whip there? It is my understanding that conditions obtaining there are unsatisfactory, particularly bearing in mind that it is now our understanding that the Liverpool line is to be discontinued? Will the Minister agree that conditions at Holyhead must be rendered satisfactory for passengers travelling to and from Britain and Ireland?

The point raised by the Deputy is a good one. Whatever I and the Government can do to ensure that the B & I receive a fair crack of the whip at the ports to which they will be plying in Britain will be done.

Have the Minister and his Department any plans in regard to the future management of the B & I? Will he say whether he considers it a satisfactory arrangement that an outside private company will have responsibility for the planning and development of the company? Now that the negotiations are complete will the Minister agree that some of the difficulties encountered in reaching a conclusion centred on personalities within the leadership of the officers' group of the workforce? Furthermore, will he agree that there is urgent need to reappraise the personnel and management levels within the B & I to ensure that in future no such difficulties will stand in the way of their profitmaking viability?

I have no intention of making any comment on personalities or clash of personalities within the B & I.

Does the Minister acknowledge their existence?

When the question of management comes to be decided the Government will take a decision on that but that question does not arise as of now.

Now that we have had an internal solution to the problem — which I hope will prove to be a permanent one, or at least a temporary solution to a major problem — will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that there will be an external solution, to ensure that Sealink and B & I will not compete in a manner which will drive one of them out of business, the most obvious one at present being the B & I because of its vulnerability? Will the Minister agree that it is very important — which is why I tabled Question No. 32 — to ensure that we maintain a strategic link for passengers and cargo between here and Britain? Does he consider that talks should be held to ensure that we complement the Sealink service with B & I rather than have cut-throat competition?

I do not think I should lay down any principles for the B & I in this regard. We have encouraged the B & I to become a commercially viable company operating on the Irish Sea. That, in itself, implies that they should have the powers which they consider they need to do so. Their relationship with other companies plying the Irish Sea would be a matter for their board to decide.

Apart from the present commitment of £11 million to the B & I would the Minister say whether there are any forward or future commitments, implicit to explicit, to the company?

The reply to the question, as I gave it to the House, indicated that the Government noted the plan of action, the across-the-board support of the workforce and agreed, on the basis of the plan, to provide the company with up to £11 million in Exchequer equity in 1988. The Government decided also to review the position — perhaps there is an implication in that — not later than the autumn of 1988 on the basis of detailed comparison of the company's performance against forecast.

Will the Minister consider allowing for debate in this House on the performance of the B & I company within the year and in the context of the Government's proposed review in the autumn of 1988?

I am sure that opportunities will arise during the year, particularly in the course of a debate on the Estimates for my Department, when that matter can be discussed.

We have now exhausted the three questions nominated for priority. Does that mean that ordinary questions can be answered until 3.45 p.m.?

No, ordinary questions will be concluded at 3.30 p.m.

Even by agreement?

Standing Orders are clear on the matter, Deputy.

Could not the Ceann Comhairle have a memory lapse for 15 minutes?

Is the Deputy suggesting that Standing Orders should be amended?