Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The debacle regarding the scheduling of this debate and the way the media appears to have more information than the Dáil brings me back to the infamous "Prom Night", when Members were left to rely on information from Twitter about what was going on. The only difference is that this debate is taking place in daylight.

Look where the rush and lack of information on that debate has led us now, with all the current controversies surrounding IBRC and the issues pre- and post liquidation. We know now, only through persistent questioning and FOI requests, that there has been a war going on between the Department and the IBRC, yet the Minister came in here that night and specifically went out of his way to imply that the management team in IBRC was outstanding, a statement we now know does not stack up against the evidence. The rushed way in which this debate is proceeding leads me to worry that in the months or years to come, we will be relying on FOI requests to the Department of Transport in much the same way as I am currently pursuing information from the Department of Finance in an effort to unearth the truth. I do not believe that is any way to do business.

In another worrying nod to the current IBRC controversy, we now have concerns being raised regarding conflicts of interest of some key advisers on this sale. I read with interest a report in the business section of the Irish Independent on 14 May this year, entitled "Government says no conflict of interest over advice". The article reports that one of the key advisers has links to an investment index that placed a bet on the planned sale. However, again we are being assured there are Chinese walls. The article stated:

The agency confirmed that checks are in place after it emerged that an investment index connected to one of the Government's key advisers on whether to sell Aer Lingus has placed a 'bet' on the planned €1.36 bn takeover of the airline by IAG.

The investment banking arm of global financial giant Credit Suisse is one of three firms appointed by Government agency NewERA to advise on whether or not it is in the interests of the State to sell its 25.1pc stake in Aer Lingus.

The Irish Independent has learned that an investment index operated by Credit Suisse's separate asset management arm has a position in Aer Lingus shares, hoping to turn a profit on a possible sale of the airline going ahead.

Therefore, the advisers are beneficiaries.

Currently, this House is being forced to proceed with a costly review into IBRC deals, a review that is not only costly but inherently conflicted, particularly given the most recent incidence of the special liquidator who has been assigned to conduct the review actually joining Denis O'Brien in his High Court action to injunct into IBRC's business dealings and the unorthodox verbal agreements between senior debtors and the CEO, a very worrying trend. How can we expect citizens to trust in the Government's handling of this process when time after time, this kind of deal happens. Then, months or even years later, the truth emerges and the facts emerge about who has benefitted and who has lost out. Just consider the history of tribunals in this country and the lack of follow-through on them.

In 2006, when discussing the proposed sale by Fianna Fáil of Aer Lingus, Fine Gael's Olivia Mitchell had this to say during the debate:

The Dáil has had no input into the nature of the sale. It's an insult to the Dáil and to the taxpayers who own this company ... it makes it impossible for us to play our role as a watchdog for the public. There is simply no information on which the Opposition or Government backbenchers can make an informed decision. We are acting on behalf of the real owners of Aer Lingus, the citizens of Ireland.

Does this not seem eerily familiar to today's proceedings? These were the words of a Fine Gael Deputy. All that has changed is that Fine Gael has moved from this side to the other side of the House.

The State stands to get €330 million for selling off our vital stake in Aer Lingus. It seems a very cheap price. The Heathrow slots alone are worth more than €900 million. We are also aware there is at least €540 million cash on the balance sheet of Aer Lingus. There are also assets in the form of aircraft and fixed assets, not to mention the iconic brand. These are all significant in regard to the value of the company. IAG must be delighted with the €330 million sales tag. What we are witnessing here is the creation of an election slush fund. I listened to some of this debate in my office and heard people already making pitches for how this money will be spent.

Essentially, we are going to walk away from our national airline. Meanwhile, we have invested upwards of €1 billion in a quango like Irish Water. I cannot see the sense in this. The family treasure trove is being pillaged and will shortly be left empty. The pension reserve fund has been decimated, CIE looks set to be sold and we had to fight to maintain our forests, which were on the list of assets to be sold off.

The Minister has not made a compelling case. We do not have the details to evaluate this sale. Essentially, what we are hearing is more spin rather than us being informed.

What about the Aer Lingus deferred pensioners? We know there is a big hole in the pension fund and that pensioners in a particular category were excluded from the process when decisions were being made about how the remaining funds would be used. Those people had an expectation that their concerns would be addressed and the Minister knows that. They have made contact with him. I believe they were even outside his house. Those hopes are now being dashed. The assurances about regional airports do not stack up against what the same outfit is doing in more populated regions in the United Kingdom.

The key question is whether this is a prudent sale for the citizens or is it, for the purchaser, the sale of the century? I have no way of knowing, and somebody should not have to make a contribution to a debate in this House when they do not know the answer to that question.

See this speech in context