Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We should all probably all declare our interest in Aer Lingus. The majority of Members in this House travel with Aer Lingus. If we had a choice, that is the airline with which we would travel. Increasingly across the country people adopt that position.

I know people who have worked for Aer Lingus during the years. They have had good employment. There have been difficulties in relations between management and staff in the company, but it is still a successful airline.

I also know many Aer Lingus pensioners and have heard many of their stories about the shortfall in the pension fund. I also knew TEAM Aer Lingus staff, many of whom were given letters of comfort about job security. As we know to our cost, these letters turned out not to be worth the paper on which they were written.

In my previous spell in this House one of my many jobs was as spokesperson on transport. At the time there was considerable difficulty within Aer Lingus and the then Fianna Fáil-led Government was discussing selling it. Ten years ago, on Tuesday, 24 May 2005, I tabled a motion on Aer Lingus. It may be for historians to read, but many of the things included in Sinn Féin's motion at the time are still relevant. It recognised the enormous contribution to the economy made by the national airline, Aer Lingus, since its establishment; commended the workforce in Aer Lingus, as we have all done tonight, for building up the company over many years as one of the foremost airlines globally and for their major contribution in returning the company to record profitability since 2001; and noted that State funds, through the National Pensions Reserve Fund, were at the time being invested in aviation companies throughout the world, while the Government refused to invest State funds in Aer Lingus.

The Government tabled an amendment stating these were matters for the board having regard to its statutory remit and that the Government did not have an input into them. The amendment welcomed "the Government’s recent decision in principle on the sale of a majority shareholding in Aer Lingus to provide the funds needed by the company". The narrative now is that it was sold to bring the company into the 21st century and to make it more profitable and accessible. The amendment also welcomed "the Government's decision to maintain a significant minority stake in the airline to protect the State’s key strategic interests". The debate at the time was about whether that stake was sufficient. Many of us argue that it was a strategic mistake.

I note what Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin said about the importance of Aer Lingus. One of the debates at the time was about a simple thing that was so important to families. When someone dies abroad, there is the difficulty of getting the remains of a loved one flown back to Ireland. That was a major concern at the time and people were talking about how it would happen in the future. I have not heard that matter raised in this debate. It will certainly be a concern of people in the future. We all know about cases in which, unlike other airlines, Aer Lingus went the extra mile. I would be as critical as many about changes we have seen in how Aer Lingus deals with customers and so on. However, compared with other airlines that operate in the State, its connectivity with passengers is excellent.

My motion in 2005 deplored "the decision of the Government to sell the majority stake in Aer Lingus held by the State on behalf of the Irish people, thus leaving the company and the workforce open to exploitation by private commercial interests who will profit from the decades of investment by the Irish taxpayer in building up Aer Lingus and from the sacrifices of the workforce who saved the company in recent years". It also called on the Government to retain Aer Lingus in State ownership; invest in Aer Lingus; and safeguard the employment, pay and conditions of all Aer Lingus workers. If we are really honest, we have to say the sale of Aer Lingus is a cheap, quick fire sale that will generate huge profits for a multinational conglomerate that will do well out of it.

It is certainly not motivated by the needs of the workers and definitely not in the short-term interests or benefit of the people. The Minister has outlined his view on the matter. The sale of Aer Lingus will conceivably cost jobs, but, again, there are no guarantees in that regard. As stated by other speakers and in my humble opinion, jobs will definitely be lost and this sell-off will damage Ireland's connectivity and development. This profitable and growing company which has key landing slots in an important airport is being sold for €350 million, far below what it is worth, a matter on which other speakers have also commented. We are now being told by the Government that revenue from the sale will be spent to increase connectivity to Ireland. To be clear, we are selling off a key component of Ireland's connectivity to invest in its connectivity. Perhaps I am being simplistic in that regard, but that is how it appears to me. We have been told that the Heathrow Airport slots and that thousands of Aer Lingus jobs are safe for seven years. We are asked to believe this stay of execution will hold for seven years, but I do not believe there is any guarantee that will happen. To inject an air of honesty into the debate, I do not believe anybody can guarantee the jobs will be retained.

I heard on radio today that a Labour Party Member, Deputy Michael McNamara, wanted to read the details of the proposal. That is the right approach. We all want to hear exactly what is contained in the proposal. We know that IMPACT has still not received any correspondence from Aer Lingus on issues raised by it with the company in relation to its members. Not only do Members of the House want to know the details of the proposal, so, too, do the trade unions.

If IAG decides to sell Aer Lingus or wrap up the company, what will happen to these wafer thin assurances that the Government and many back benchers claim are key assurances? As I said, I opposed the original 75% sell-off of Aer Lingus, in respect of which I moved a motion in 2005. Fianna Fáil has some neck to pretend that it cares about Aer Lingus when it set in train the sale of that key shareholding in the company. During the debate on the aforementioned motion I argued that a limited sell-off of shares would lead to full privatisation in the future, which is what is happening. I will leave it to historians to work out. While the Labour Party supported Sinn Féin on the issue at the time, because it is part of the Government it now feels a need to back it on this matter.

The belief is that revenue from the sale will be used to generate spending and a goodwill factor among the electorate. I am sure the Minister will say the opposite. The track record of the IAG indicates that its interests do not lie in providing jobs or supporting countries in which it purchases airlines. Many speakers have commented on that issue also. It was also stated in the House that following the takeover by IAG of Iberia in 2011, 4,500 jobs were lost, a huge number of jobs which is more than the entire staff of Aer Lingus. Does anybody seriously believe the IAG board or its shareholders will be arguing in the interests of Ireland or its people? That is the stuff of fairytales. Members on this side of the House are regularly accused of all sorts of things but to suggest any of these people will care about what is happening in Ireland which is only a small cog in what they dream of as regards overall profits is a fairytale.

What is the position on the deferred members of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, IASS, who worked for Aer Lingus? These workers are to be forced to take a 40% reduction in their pension entitlements by way of Government legislation. What hope they do have of a fair resolution of their issues? Perhaps the Minister might say whether some of the revenue derived from the sale could be used to meet the shortfall in that scheme in recognition of the hard work, commitment and sacrifices of the workers who built the company? I do not know if that it is possible, but I am sure the proposal would have cross-party support.

Aer Lingus brings secure and consistent connectivity to Ireland that is vital to any island but particularly a country that relies heavily on foreign direct investment. For years Aer Lingus has made Ireland an attractive destination. Often, the first connection people have with Ireland is when they board an Aer Lingus flight. The airline's reputation for quality promotes a positive image of Ireland across the world. Irish people are proud of Aer Lingus, as I am sure all Members of the House are. It is not possible to bottle the Aer Lingus brand, but it is worth its weight in gold. The personal touch in the approach of Aer Lingus staff is the first indication visitors from the United States get of the welcome they will receive when coming to Ireland. This sell-off will change the dynamic in that regard.

This is a bad deal for Ireland, as will become evident in the years to come. I have referred to the motion I tabled in 2005 and what was happening at the time. There have been huge changes in this country since. Some believe this is a sell-out rather than a sell-off of Aer Lingus. The motion will be passed by the House. I genuinely hope the Minister's predictions of what is to happen will come true. I am the doubting Thomas, the negative back bencher and so on, but I genuinely hope it will be a success. While I am not in favour of the sale, I am sure it will go ahead. I take the opportunity to wish the staff and company well.

See this speech in context