Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I seek clarification on amendment No. 12a. Deputy Michelle Mulherin has been pushing the issue and is to be commended. It is a useful amendment. Why is the amendment structured in this way, in contrast to the amendment I submitted? The objective behind it is to ensure that if Ireland West Airport wanted to build, for example, a hangar to dismantle end-of-life aircraft, it could do so and avail of the incentive. Up to now, the legislation was drafted in such a way that it would not facilitate this. The Minister has broken the section into subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and has made provision for the subsections to be implemented at different stages. The original intent of section 33 was to be an incentive to Shannon Airport, and it was constructed in such a way that only Shannon Airport could avail of it. Deputy Mulherin and I asked the Minister why that should happen, and the authorities of Knock airport have also written to the Minister and explained the difficulty with the structure of section 33. In light of the reasoning behind the original incentive - to support Shannon Airport - it seems the way in which the amendment is structured will allow the Minister to tell Shannon Airport to construct its hangers for maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircraft while holding off on the second element, the dismantling of aircraft, until a future date. Subsection (2) facilitates such phasing. Why has the Minister decided to go down that road rather than accepting the all-encompassing amendment I proposed so that the overall maintenance of aircraft and the dismantling of aircraft are provided for in the same order? Is the objective of this to treat all airports equally? The Minister said the reason for the inclusion of aircraft dismantling was to facilitate the request made by Deputy Michelle Mulherin and articulated by her in respect of Knock airport. Why has the Minister taken this approach?

Amendment No. 15, which deals with Ireland West Airport, has been ruled out of order, but the sentiments are expressed in amendment No. 16, tabled by Deputy Pearse Doherty.

A concern has been raised by Ireland West Airport, Knock, about the way in which this section is structured. I agree with the Minister that it is a generous amendment but that is only the case if an airport has a substantial income in the first place. Because of the change in the structure and ownership of Shannon Development, Shannon Estates will now come under the control of Shannon Airport. There is a substantial land bank there and Shannon Airport has a substantial rental income on an annual basis. The way in which this amendment is drafted facilitates Shannon Airport. I have no difficulty in facilitating Shannon Airport. We want to see a thriving airport in Shannon; it has always been a linchpin of tourism development in our region. However, what we seek is a level playing field.

A commitment was given at the time the original announcement was made regarding the restructuring of Shannon Development and Shannon Airport that any incentives that would be made available would be accessible on an equal basis to all airports. However, the difficulty is that the way in which this section is structured does not allow Knock airport to avail of the incentives. In order to avail of them, an airport must have a substantial rental income in its own right. Because Knock airport does not have a rental income and is servicing a debt of €10 million, which it is doing successfully, it is not possible for it to raise the necessary capital to invest in its hangars. It cannot offset such investment against rental income in that way that Shannon Airport can. To put it in plain English, if tomorrow morning Shannon Airport were to invest €7 million in the development or refurbishment of hangars at a 4% interest rate over a seven-year period, that would constitute a direct subvention of €1.75 million to the airport. It would set Ireland West Airport at a strategic disadvantage compared to Shannon Airport in attracting in that type of investment. I would welcome such investment coming into Shannon, but all we are looking for is a level playing field.

The Minister made the argument on Committee Stage that he does not want to establish an incentive scheme that could be exploited, as has happened in the past. I believe we would all agree that is not the way we want to go. This provision is specifically for aviation facilities and therefore it cannot be exploited to any great extent. Credit needs to be given to Ireland West Airport, which has increased its passenger numbers by 350% during the past decade, thereby supporting some 900 jobs in the region with very little Government subvention to date. It seeks a slight change in the legislation as it is currently proposed which would allow unused capital allowances to be made available against an investor's other income, specifically in regard to aviation facilities, as outlined in the legislation. That would ensure that Knock airport would be treated on an equal basis to Shannon Airport and that it too could attract investment.

I ask the Minister, when responding, to address two further issues. One is the correspondence he has received from Ireland West Airport, Knock; I ask him to specifically outline the Department's position on that. The other is the Government's position on a development plan that was submitted by Knock airport to the previous Government, which failed to act on it, and which is now on the desk of the current Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. This needs to be acted on. It could potentially create 500 new jobs in a region that is an unemployment black spot. This ties in with the amendment tabled by Deputy Doherty.

See this speech in context