Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I thank my colleague, Deputy Olivia Mitchell, for affording me the opportunity to speak on this motion. Like many other Members, my constituency consists of many Aer Lingus workers with a long history of support for the State airline. It is important that we encourage competition. Any State or semi-State body should be able to accept competition and compete effectively in a commercial environment by providing a service that is efficient and cost-effective.

I am confused about the outcome of the discussions which took place within the Cabinet in recent weeks. The Minister for Finance said in his reply that the Government decided in principle last Wednesday to allow the sale of a majority shareholding in Aer Lingus while retaining a significant stake in the company to protect the State's key strategic interests. The last time I heard something similar was when the Minister spoke in this House some years ago about Irish Sugar. That issue involved discussion of the golden share and strategic interests. In that instance, great hope and confidence were placed in the reassurances given that such an approach would provide the security necessary to allow us move forward.

This approach worked up to a point and until the recent events of which we are all aware. We all acknowledge that changing times have affected the situation of Irish Sugar. I have no problem with the reasoning now prevalent in the commercial arena that the public sector must compete effectively with the private sector and must be capable of meeting on an ongoing basis all the relevant commercial challenges. The discussions which took place over the last number of weeks between the two Government parties have been reflected in daily discussions on "Morning Ireland" of the competing merits of the opposing cases. One wonders which party won the debate.

It appears the proposal put forward for a second terminal in private ownership has lost out. At the same time, we are told a third terminal may be built after the next general election. The public will not know in the forthcoming election what will eventually transpire in this regard. Will the second terminal compete against the third or the first terminal? I simply do not know. The Minister for Finance is a hurling fan from a strong hurling county where the players are exponents of ground hurling. A good deal of ground hurling must have taken place in Cabinet when this issue was discussed. I am somewhat askance at the outcome because it came almost as a heave against the head. It seemed initially there would be a second terminal which would be in private ownership and would compete with the existing facility, and that the customer would be the beneficiary. I am not convinced that will be the case and I am not sure such an outcome will prevail in the future.

I must declare an interest in view of the references made to the criticisms of the Government's plan by Mr. Ulick McEvaddy who is a relative of mine. I listened with interest to the proposal put forward by Mr. McEvaddy and could see nothing wrong with it economically or commercially. All the indicators suggested it was a solid and sound proposal. I do not know what happened to change the Government's attitude in this matter. The sound approach is to take account of the economics of the situation and the fact that all international airlines and airports must operate under the dictates of the requirement for profitability and competitiveness.

Looking to the future, I cannot say how Mr. McEvaddy's proposal will weigh up against the proposal before the House in terms of the Government's amendment. Economists abound in this country and they usually tell us ten or 15 years later how we all went wrong in regard to some particular matter. I have much more to say on this matter but there is no time to do so.

See this speech in context