Martin Brady (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)

In contrast to the intent of this motion and the political thinking of the party sponsoring it, this Government's aim is to ensure that the airline continues to make a significant and valuable contribution to the economic and tourism development of the country with the maximum number of sustainable jobs.

Unlike the sponsoring party, the Government recognises it can only do this if Aer Lingus can compete successfully, operate profitably and have access to a variety of funding sources to facilitate growth and provide financial security.

As part of its strategic vision, Aer Lingus believes there is a significant growth potential particularly on long haul routes provided it has the appropriate cost base and access to funds to finance aircraft acquisitions. As Deputy Peter Power said, this funding would not be made available from the Exchequer so private sector alternatives must be examined.

The motion contains many alarmist references such as leaving the company and the workforce open to exploitation by private sectoral interests. This Government has already anticipated and met this concern by deciding that a significant stake of at least 25% should be retained, irrespective of chosen transaction mechanism. Concerns have been expressed about the disposal of a minority stake and the strategic issues including the slots at Heathrow Airport. All the options available within the regulatory framework will be examined to ensure ongoing access to Heathrow Airport for Irish consumers. Apart from maintaining a significant minority stake in the company, options could include specific shareholder agreement of commercial arrangements between the State and the company. Under company law the ownership of more than 20% of the issued share capital of a company enables a registered holder to deny the right of third parties to compulsorily acquire outstanding shares, which is a safeguard. The ownership of 25% of the issued share capital of a company enables the registered holder, in addition, to deny the remaining shareholders the ability to pass special and extraordinary resolutions, for example, such as making changes to memorandum on articles of association. It is not unusual for states to retain a shareholding in former flag-carriers. Given the uniqueness of the sector this is acceptable to markets as was the case with, for example, Air France. Once a minimum stake of 20% is held the Government cannot be forced to share its shares. This is clear legal evidence that the Government will not and cannot expose the company to negative interests as stated by the parties opposite.

See this speech in context