Dáil debates

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

Aer Lingus Share Disposal: Motion (Resumed)

 

4:05 pm

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is important that as many Deputies as possible speak on this debate because it is very important. Not only that, it is important that as many Deputies as possible then vote on this. It will be remembered in a negative way because we are an island nation and are looking to ensure that we will have no control over connectivity with other countries. Some people might be too young to remember some changes that took place in respect of Ireland's connectivity with Great Britain and Europe. We had ferry links in the past which served the country very well. In the 1960s, one of those companies was nationalised. In 1992, the State sold off B&I Ferries. I was quite young at the time and felt that it was a bad decision. I still believe it was a bad decision to sell off a company that allowed us to control ferries to Great Britain in particular. I remember some of the arguments at the time which were that most people were using aeroplanes, that this was the future transport mode and that we controlled Aer Lingus. At the time, we did control it and the Heathrow slots. In 1992, we were guaranteed that Aer Lingus would serve the nation, that it would continue to do so in perpetuity and that it was a highly profitable company that provided dividends to its primary shareholder, namely, the Government, since it was first set up.

We now see the hypocrites who are not in the Chamber and who condemn the selling off of shares in Aer Lingus proposed by the Minister, namely, Fianna Fáil. It did the damage and set up Aer Lingus for sale. Aer Lingus is no longer a State company and will definitely not be a State company if the Minister has his way on the vote on the motion tomorrow. The Minister has set up Aer Lingus to be totally controlled by the market for profit. Profit is king. Profitable capitalist companies could not care less about the national interest so the 1% share is meaningless and will be meaningless in the future. Five, seven or ten years down the line, those slots will be up for sale when and if IAG decides to sell them. If it decides to move heaven and earth in the future away from Aer Lingus headquarters here, it will be able to do so because it will have directorships and the directorships of IAG, like those of any company, mean that the profit of the company is king. The onus is on the shareholders. At least, the Government now has a shareholding that is large enough to have some kind of influence on the board of Aer Lingus. It will have no influence in the future other than the national legislation under which we in this Chamber try to impose some controls. That is about it. There might be controls if the UK decides to stay in the EU rather than extract itself from it if it holds the referendum next year and if IAG continues to headquarter in Great Britain. Again, we have no control over that. We had some say in terms of Aer Lingus and its operations in the future.

We have already seen what happens when an airline is taken over by IAG in terms of job losses. I know that commitments have been given. Those commitments are not worth the paper they are written on. I might be proved wrong in time but I am not willing to take that chance. I believe we should refuse to allow this airline to be sold off. I heard the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform who was absolutely comical. He was cribbing that this was the fourth time he had to deal with a bid to sell Aer Lingus. The only reason he had to deal with a bid four times is because he said from day one that it was for sale. If he said from day one that it is a State asset and that it is in our national interest to retain it in public ownership as a public utility, nobody would have been making a bid for it but no, this Government came into power and set out a list of State assets that were to be sold off, some of which have been sold off and some of which have not.

Some assets were not sold because the Government did not believe it was profitable enough to do so at that stage. It was not that it was against a sale or that it believed control of these assets should stay in public ownership. Some public assets or some of the family silver have been sold.

The Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport who spoke earlier on this issue started bellowing about the west. As I have spent a lot of time and went to school there, I understand a lot of what has happened there in the past 40 or 50 years. This Government's policy on the west is a continuation of a previous policy, namely, bánú na tíre or emigration. It only wants airlines to serve the west in order that people can return as tourists rather than live here. Shouting and bellowing that something is good does not make it so. It is either good or bad and, in this case, it is bad. Once Aer Lingus is gone, it will be gone forever more and unless the Minister starts to buy back shares, he will not have control of it.

This is all about short-sighted gains. The valuable slots to which the Minister referred are not and will not be protected in perpetuity, never mind the fact that the money the Government will receive for its shareholding is peanuts in comparison to what it should be. This is not even a good deal from a commercial perspective. There are real concerns about the future for workers at Aer Lingus, as well as for current and deferred pensioners. There is a case still to be answered by the Government regarding Aer Lingus pensioners which will now be passed on to a private company.

Mr. Ciarán Hancock points out in an article in The Irish Timestoday that Mr. Willie Walsh will not be with IAG forever. The Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and many Government backbenchers have referred to the fact that he is Irish. The Minister of State has suggested he will come back to Ireland one day, but we do not know that for definite. Even if he does come back, that does not make him the greatest Irish man alive. There are many Irish men who are at the head of companies who could not care less about Ireland. Equally, there are many people who are well known in Ireland who have located their moneys and interests abroad. That is true in the case of some of the most high profile Irish people.

To return to Mr. Hancock's article and the point that Mr. Walsh will not be with IAG forever, as Mr. Hancock points out, "who's to say that his successor will be as enthusiastic about its investment in Aer Lingus? Especially if IAG hits some turbulence." We have all seen in the past 30 years the level of turbulence in the airline industry generally. Mr. Hancock goes on to say UK airline BMI "withered on the vine under Lufthansa's ownership and Air France off-loaded its Swords-based subsidiary CityJet when it no longer fit its investment criteria." We do not know what the future holds and cannot predict it. All I can predict is that if the Government passes the motion, it will have very little say in Aer Lingus and the future of that airline. At least for the moment we have some say in what happens in it. We can protect jobs, look to Aer Lingus to increase its routes and use the slots at Heathrow Airport to our own advantage instead of to that of the Middle East. This is a bad deal which should be rejected.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.