Feargal Quinn (Independent)

They are a national asset owned by Aer Lingus. If we lose control of the airline we lose control of the slots, which could have a devastating impact on our tourism industry. This is not a fanciful scenario. Consider what has happened in the past few years on the telecommunications front where the privatised Eircom has been systematically obstructing and undermining the key national priority to roll out broadband and to make it accessible to the whole country at a reasonable price.

There is much to be argued on both sides of the Aer Lingus issue. The Minister and the Government have not made up their minds. Nevertheless, we are being asked to make our minds up and give a blank cheque to the Government on this critical matter of national importance. Why the need for this blank cheque? Thanks to the uproar in the other House and the way Deputies greeted the original Bill the amended Bill includes a saving clause, section 3(5), which states: "The Minister for Finance may not dispose of any shares in the company without the general principles of the disposal being laid before and approved by Dáil Éireann". However, now that this concession has been squeezed out of the Minister, the need to include the power to sell shares in this Bill is fatally undermined. As the measure has come to the Oireachtas for approval, why not do so by means of a two section Bill? On many occasions in the past the Oireachtas has shown it is capable of responding quickly and urgently, so urgency cannot be pleaded in objection.

I cannot stress too much my objection to incorporating a blank cheque into legislation, especially into legislation concerned with the future of one of our main national assets. If the Government brings a decision before the Legislature for approval it gets that approval after the necessary scrutiny. Putting a complete blank cheque into a Bill removes that essential element of legislative scrutiny. We must not — I hope we will not — make laws on the principle of "whatever you're having yourself, sir". This is the important issue which lies at the heart of the Bill before the House and it is why I cannot support it in its present form.

I urge the Minister to think again and to follow through the natural consequence of the amendment already accepted by deleting section 3 altogether.