Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Bill. I remember the dark days of the last quarter of 2001. I know what went on at the airport and in Government. It looked as if Aer Lingus would go down, although that was not for want of support. It is important to remember that the Government was prepared to put money into Aer Lingus but that was not allowed because of European competition legislation. While President Bush put billions of dollars into supporting American airlines, we could not do that, although I believe the French Government found ways to do so. We had to watch as Swissair and Sabena went out of business.

I listened to Senator Dooley giving credit to the Aer Lingus chief executive officer. While I will not take from the CEO in any way, those who put their blood on the line were the unions and workers at Aer Lingus. It was a very difficult time. Although Senator Ross might say this differently, if ever there was a precise articulation of the benefits of partnerships, it was in the saving of Aer Lingus.

A number of measures were needed to turn Aer Lingus around. There were three significant parts to the plan. The first was the idea of a complete revolution in work practices, routines and the system in which workers contributed their labour, skill and expertise, at all levels. The second part was painful, if one considers the situation three years ago, in that the workers had to forego the PPF pay increase due at that time. The third and even more painful part was that workers had to agree to a significant level of redundancies. These elements were the basis of the plan.

As part of the negotiations, it was agreed that the foregone pay increase would pay for the workers to buy into the share options scheme. Everybody agreed this was a fair way to do business. It rewarded labour, it was part of the profit-sharing that the Government was pushing and we made it work at the time. The workers bought into that at great pains to themselves at a time when some people were saying the company was going under and that the scheme would not work, but they made it work.

It was agreed that the share option scheme would come into operation in October last year, when the scheme would be signed, sealed and delivered. However, it was slow work getting the legislation through, as it got caught up with the budget. It did not reach the Houses until after the budget and took a while to go through the Dáil. At the very earliest it will leave the Seanad next week.

Section 7 gives the company power to issue shares to employees. However, the redundancies have kicked in already, so in effect those who are about to leave or who have left, but who have paid for their shares, are technically not eligible to get them because they are no longer employees. That is a technical point but under the legislation the company does not have the authority to issue shares to them if they are no longer employees. Senator Browne and Senator Dooley mentioned this issue and Senator Ross and I have already tabled an amendment dealing with the matter.

The circumstances were the same with the ESB. Instead of stating that the company has the power to issue shares, according to section 7, the Minister should include an enabling clause stating the company not only has that power but that it is deemed always to have had the power to issue shares. In other words, the company could have issued shares to the people concerned previously.

The Minister should accept that amendment, which is tabled on the basis that a similar situation has already been dealt with in this way in the ESB legislation. The wording of the amendment Senator Ross and I submitted follows the wording in the previous case precisely. No one is trying to pull a fast one, nor is the Department or Aer Lingus trying to deprive these people. They have been caught by time. The shutter was pulled down before we had time to place the bet. The Department acknowledged that fact and senior Aer Lingus human resources officials have also acknowledged that this must be addressed. This minor amendment is the only one being tabled from these benches and it should have the support of the House. I ask the Minister to accept it or to bring forward a provision with similar wording. I hope he is open to dealing with this equitably in fairness to all concerned. Can we agree on that?