Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

To clarify for the Minister, Deputy Coveney, there is nobody on any side of this argument who does not understand that what we are debating is the issue of the 25% stake. We know that the initial vandalism to Aer Lingus in 2006 was carried out on Fianna Fáil's watch.

The die was cast for the 25% stake back in 2012 when the Government compiled a list of what it regarded as non-strategic State assets. Along with elements of the ESB, Bord Gáis and Coillte, which of course it stepped back from, there was the 25% stake in Aer Lingus. A "non-strategic asset", it said. At the time I remember questioning, and not getting satisfactory answers from, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, on how on earth the Government arrived at the conclusion that the 25% stake was not strategic. I listen to Government Deputies now and I listened to the Minister last night and all are praising Aer Lingus, which is correct to do. The Minister set out the way Aer Lingus has served and continues to serve the country well. He also observed that Aer Lingus and its operations represent a significant and legitimate national interest. Strategic, strategic, strategic.

If the objective at the outset had been to offload non-strategic assets, this holding in Aer Lingus would never have appeared on the list. However, that was not the rationale or the motivation. Instead, Fine Gael and the Labour Party, led by the nose by Fine Gael, agreed to an approach and a set of actions that are all about taking the public interest and the public share out of public utilities and aviation, including Aer Lingus.

Some of the Minister's colleagues have made valiant efforts to convince the rest of us that the rights of workers in Aer Lingus are protected by this deal. They cite, almost ironically, the registered employment agreements and say they will be a catch-all to secure people's rights and entitlements. It is deeply ironic because the very legislation required to give life and effect to such agreements has not even passed through the Oireachtas as we speak. Fears of compulsory redundancy, fears of outsourcing, fears of a real, effective running down of workers' terms and conditions are justifiable because if IAG and the Government have their way it will, necessarily and by definition, trigger a process of consolidation. If we are to follow the trend and logic of the Nyras report, that will involve very serious cuts in employment. Not alone will this involve a reduction in the numbers of those employed, it will also involve a substantial change in the nature and profile of employee and a change from direct to indirect employment. Many of the airlines cited by Deputy Coveney saw exactly that pattern and exactly that narrative play out.

I find it deeply unacceptable that the Government is so cavalier in its approach to the rights of employees, job security and the standard of work of those employed in Aer Lingus. The workers feel that acutely. They are not fooled for a second by the Minister's conditional and half-baked, halfway-house "guarantees". They do not cut the mustard for them.

Even more shocking is the Minister's attitude towards the pensioners. He met with the group of 1,500 deferred pensioners who had received letters of comfort from Aer Lingus. Most had given huge service to the company and they were given a clear understanding, in black and white, that their pension entitlements would be secured and protected. What followed was anything but that. I have a letter from one of them, a man who had very lengthy service with Aer Lingus, and his pension entitlement has been cut by 60%. It has more than halved.

At one stage while thinking out loud, mar dhea, Deputy Joe Costello of the Labour Party said he would seek something for this group of deferred pensioners if a deal were to be put on the table.

See this speech in context