Mr. Willie Walsh:

Testing has progressed significantly. I go back 12 months when we started doing the PCR tests and antigen tests had not been developed to a standard which was considered acceptable. The advances that have been made both in the quality and speed of the testing and the assurance that people can get from testing has been really significant. One has to admire the science associated both with the vaccine and the testing. A standard that we believed was acceptable or necessary 12 months ago should not be necessary today because there have been so many developments both in the vaccination and the quality of treatment that we can give in our hospitals.

The fears that we had 12 months ago that the health systems would be overrun, and I am aware that it came close at times, have significantly abated. I also note that the most vulnerable in most countries have been vaccinated at this stage. The quality or quantity of risk, whichever way one wants to talk about it, has changed. The mitigation action therefore that one should put in place to address that has changed because one wants to end up with the same residual level of risk and we can do that with a cheaper, more efficient and more comfortable type of test than the PCR one.

I am aware that the scientists disagree on this and it is great to see that they cannot all agree. I have seen some thinking to the effect that a rapid antigen test should not be used at all and others who say it is clearly an effective way of testing people, particularly testing someone who is positive, where it does not necessarily guarantee if one has a negative result that one is negative. It pretty much does guarantee, however, if one has a positive result that one is positive. Testing has progressed.

The Deputy has asked a great question as to whether more could have been done to protect jobs. It is always easy to look back and say that we could have done more or done better. I cannot be too critical and I have to say that I am a great admirer of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, who has done a fantastic job. He has responded as best he could in the circumstances and has a very challenging position going forward. The loan from ISIF is a commercial loan made on commercial terms. It is great to have ISIF there and as members may be aware, I was for a number of years chairman of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, which included responsibility for ISIF. I understand how it operates and the steps that Aer Lingus would have had to have taken to satisfy ISIF that this was a loan that was worth making and would be repaid. To be honest, the thing that would have protected jobs more than anything would have been to get international travel going again. I know that that is a simple answer for me to give but it really is. Jobs can best be protected by the operation of the airlines. The sooner that we get the airlines operating, particularly during what is traditionally the peak summer period, the better. If we miss this summer period then the situation becomes much more grave because then we are going into what is traditionally a low-demand winter period, which will be particularly dangerous for a number of airlines.

I welcome the supports that governments across the world have given. Most of that support has been in the form of debt. That is why if one looks at the industry, we in IATA estimate the debt burden on it to be $650 billion, which is $220 billion of additional debt through this period. That is increasing by the day. It is also worth pointing out that most of the financing that airlines have accessed has come from the debt and equity markets. Shareholders have put in their fair stake and the commercial debt market has been accessed. What governments have been providing is a small fraction of what the industry has had to access but it is very welcome and if it had not been made available, a number of airlines would have been in severe trouble.