Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

I wish also to address the record of the Minister, Deputy Brennan, not the projected one in his new portfolio but rather the legacy he has left following his departure from the transport Ministry. I speak specifically in regard to Aer Lingus. Does the Taoiseach not agree that it is a scandal that the national airline has been sized up for a sell-off, a privatisation, to the management team at Aer Lingus? Does the incoming Minister for Transport intend holding to the policy position pursued by the Minister, Deputy Brennan, while he had that responsibility or will the Taoiseach now definitively, on his own behalf and on behalf of Government, reject the outrageous proposal for a management buy-out of Aer Lingus?

Will the Taoiseach not agree, and I do not believe this is overstating the fact, that it is an act of piracy against the interests of this country and economy, not to mention the workforce, that any particular body of the workforce, albeit the current management or whatever, is in a position to buy out and take overall control of Aer Lingus and then, presumably, participate in a massive stripping exercise for their own personal gain? We need to be cognisant of the fact that workers in Aer Lingus have been the key factor in ensuring its success over many years, and that is not to lose sight of the loyalty of Irish travellers who have been, through the most troubled and difficult economic times, loyal users of Aer Lingus. People throughout the country feel strongly about this issue. Does the Taoiseach not recognise that already there have been 3,000 redundancies? Does he not accept that it is a misnomer to describe the proposed further redundancy of 1,300 people as voluntary when it is clear that it is anything but voluntary, against the backdrop of this company recording profits of €100 million in the past year? Is the Taoiseach aware, and I ask him to be clear when replying to the House, of the detail of the proposals being put to some 1,300 workers and their families, with all that means, and does he accept that this is not voluntary and that the vague promises about replacement and relocation amount to nothing?

See this speech in context