Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I spoke at length on this issueon Second Stage when I indicated I wouldtable an amendment which I have subsequently withdrawn having discussed the matter with the Minister. I thank him and his advisers for their help in going through the issues with me.

The issue at the time was that those who had left Aer Lingus since October but who had bought into the scheme and had agreed with the whole deal might be excluded by this legislation from effectively sharing in the share option scheme. The Minister's advisers have explained to me that the legislation does not prevent them from being involved fully in the ESOP. On Second Stage I said we had dealt with a similar matter in the ESB Bill. I now recognise it was not precisely the same because the ESOP had not been established at the same time as the ESB Act. I also recognise, provided the legislation is passed before 30 June 2004, there is nothing in it which will prevent those who have left from sharing in it. Consequently, it would be helpful for the Minister to state that this is a correct interpretation. It was on that basis that Senator Browne and I made the case.

In order to include those who have retired in the meantime in the share option scheme, those who have the authority, discretion and power to decide are the partners to the scheme, namely, the Department of Transport, the Department of Finance, the workers represented by the trade unions and the company. Once those four groups agree to extend the options to those about whom I spoke on Second Stage, they will be included. On that basis it means that nothing that happens in this House today will prevent the retired staff from achieving equity for themselves. It would be useful if the Minister of State indicated that this interpretation is reasonably correct in order that we can be assured that what we are doing legislatively here today will not cause any trouble or create any block for those retired workerswho gave of their time to the building of the company.