Jim McDaid (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

After all the debate this afternoon I find it impossible to deal with all the issues, including the slots about which there is much confusion. I shall deal first with those who are opposed to the Bill, namely, the Labour Party and Senator Quinn. Senator Quinn commenced by saying he felt there was a wake in regard to four years ago. If there is a wake, the person tends to be dead. I would rather describe it by saying the person, or the company in this instance, was quite ill. It came back and recovered through the good work of all who have been associated with it. I would like to be associated with it as well.

Unfortunately, when one has a severe illness, there is another phrase that can be used, that one is in remission. Currently, Aer Lingus is in excellent health; it is in remission. There are numerous viruses circulating all the time which I would put under the aviation volatility virus umbrella, which encompasses SARS, foot and mouth disease, Iraq and 11 September 2001. We have a healthy company at present in a volatile area. The Government has not made any final decision on this matter and is leaving it open. This has been provided for in the Bill because, in the event of a decision to privatise this company, the ideal situation is that we would be able to proceed within a time as matters can drag on. The previous Act was in 2000.

With regard to the other issues raised by Senator Ryan, I like the words "emotional twinge" about Shannon. I wish to be associated with it. Most people would have an emotional twinge about Shannon Airport and we would all like to see the future of Shannon secured. I take into consideration the genuine fears expressed by Senators Daly, Dooley and Finucane, who are from the region, and by others about the sensitivity of Shannon and the perception concerning the position there in recent weeks.

Senator McDowell referred to the loss of direct services at Shannon. I do not necessarily feel we should privatise all areas. I have no hang-ups about privatising certain areas. I see no reason that the State should have an interest in forestry, ports and other areas. There are certain other semi-State companies for which I would have an objection to privatisation, as I had when Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation. I do not have any problem with the privatisation of Aer Lingus. I do not have any problem with the privatisation of airlines, but I have a certain reservation about the privatisation of airports. As Senator White pointed out, Aer Lingus is a strong brand with an equally strong Irish identity. I do not believe an investor in that brand would abandon its core market and cease to operate direct services on very profitable routes, thereby leaving a gap for a competitor to come in and exploit. Such a decision would not make economic sense. Certain people appear to think that suddenly the island of Ireland will disappear from the map. Direct services will always outperform indirect services if the fares are competitive. That is the type of Aer Lingus we have today. I do not necessarily agree with that part of it.

With regard to the ESOP, I have asked my officials to look at what is being proposed in the amendment. I would have reason to believe we should go along with this issue. The Senator has made a good case for it. I have some statistics from Senator Dooley which indicate that the number of people involved — this will have to be verified — would be approximately 300. Therefore, we are talking about 4,000 workers who have a certain number of shares. Those shares amount to 7,700 shares per employee. If the other 300 are included, that would be reduced to 7,200. Where is the major problem with accepting the amendment?

There are other issues that have been pointed out to me also. On a quick perusal of the legal documentation of the ESOP deal which was signed by all the parties, in other words, the Department of Finance, the Department of Transport, the unions and Aer Lingus, amending this legislation would have no impact on who is entitled to receive the shares. I will take a look at it because in the original legal documentation on ESOP there is a definition of "eligible employees" and a definition regarding the relevant date. I will take a look at that area to see what can be done because the shares are required by the trust. As I indicated, Senators may also get their own legal advice on the matter.

I understand there is some confusion in regard to the slots at Heathrow Airport. I should clarify that Ireland does not own any Heathrow slots. These slots are held by Aer Lingus on the basis of grandfather rights, which are rights of historic precedence. Heathrow is the largest international hub in the world and is an important part of the Aer Lingus network. It is, therefore, essential that we continue to have access to this hub even though there is an increase in direct services from Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam. I have been involved in all the meetings of the Council of Ministers and this matter is being discussed at a ministerial level. The rules being discussed by the EU are silent on the issue of the sale of slots. However, my reading of the situation, from the way the EU is discussing the issue of slots and a change of ownership — if an airline happens to be taken over — is that these slots would be transferred to the new owner.

Aer Lingus has been a successful company. Concerns have been expressed following the recent announcements of job transfers and job losses at Shannon Airport. As I said last night, I do not propose to comment on individual industrial relations matters which are ongoing. As already mentioned, Senators must appreciate that Aer Lingus operates in an environment which is becoming more competitive with ongoing pressure to reduce its fares. This can only be achieved if costs are reduced. Where would the Shannon area be without Aer Lingus and vice versa? However, I reiterate that we have been at all times informed by Aer Lingus that it is committed to maintaining operations at Shannon, especially its US services. I accept the reservations of Senators but I will not make a political point. My party and its representatives in the Shannon region have shown their commitment to the region by putting their positions at stake. I assure Members that the Government has no intention of abandoning Shannon.

Members referred to the EU-US discussion on the open skies policy. Fine Gael and the Labour Party in the Dáil asked the Government to abandon its talks with the United States. A court of justice has decided on this issue and it is inevitable that the United States will negotiate with European in regard to airspace. We are in constant talks with the United States. If there is an inevitability about the EU-US talks, where would Ireland be if not talking to the United States so that it takes our concerns on board when negotiating in an EU context? The Opposition in the Dáil yesterday asked the Government to abandon that position. This issue is misunderstood. The Opposition sought to have the talks abandoned but, if that was the case, how could the US know our position when negotiating on an EU-US basis?