Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister. For a moment I thought I was going to be in the extremely comfortable position when speaking, of being wedged between the current and former Ministers.

In 1958, Seán Lemass described the creation of Aer Lingus as his greatest achievement. He said the aeroplane was the real instrument of liberation for this country and, from that aspect, perhaps the single most important development of this century.

Before getting into the details and the merits of the Bill I wish to state that Aer Rianta, which was created out of Aer Lingus in 1969, has been one of the finest examples of State enterprise. It was not created for ideological reasons or for the sake of socialism. Like all the State companies, it was created because of the deficiencies of private enterprise at that time that simply was not prepared to take the type of risks involved. It used to be described as the jewel in the crown. As far as I know, there has not been any State investment in Aer Rianta since 1969. On the contrary, it gave €300 million in dividends to the State.

I strongly deprecate the attacks of Senator Ross on Aer Rianta. It has managed to build up traffic through the State airports to about 20 million passengers currently. There are many new routes. Aer Rianta International was highly successful and at a time when the State was under a bit of a squeeze in the late 1980s, it took on the responsibilities for the Great Southern Hotel chain. We are talking about a highly successful State enterprise of which we have all been proud and despite all the complaints about services at this or that airport, the larger an airport gets the less customer friendly it is bound to become. There is nothing so friendly as a little airport like the one in Farranfore. It manages very well.

The Minister is absolutely right about one aspect. The three main airports are a natural monopoly. I accept the possibility that there could be some competition at Dublin but that is an unanswerable argument against privatisation. We should not privatise companies that are not merely strategic assets but natural monopolies into the bargain. The State has made huge investment, although not through the Exchequer, and built up a major public asset. It is not as if the Exchequer needs the money.

The strongest argument for this Bill is the following statistic. I did the calculation based on the 2002 figures. A total of 80% of this country's air traffic goes through Dublin Airport, and that is very lopsided. Some doubts have been expressed as to whether one can apply competition. There is a competitive element. It is true that somebody living in the greater Dublin area is unlikely, most of the time, to go to Cork to get a flight but there are many people in Munster who have to travel to Dublin to fly out of the country. I accept there will always be a larger range of destinations from Dublin as Dublin attracts people from throughout the Thirty-two Counties. I am not saying that can be countervailed completely but 80% is a very high figure, and there is the question of competing with the new routes.

At a regional tourism briefing at the beginning of this year, I asked an executive of Aer Rianta in Shannon what she felt about the Minister's plan. She made the good point that it was not only a question of the precise structure for the airport, whether it goes independent, but the whole range of Government decisions. This was in the immediate context of the national conference centre in that some announcement was made about it going to Dublin. The point being made was that if we persist in trying to put everything into Dublin, we should not be surprised if Dublin Airport is much more viable than Shannon or Cork. The decentralisation programme and the national spatial strategy are two different aspects in terms of trying to broaden out development.

The requirement in the Bill for business plans provides a precaution. Obviously, they have to be viable and credible and there is a further safety net in the fact that the three airports remain in State ownership. I have an open mind as to whether the three airports should be autonomous under one umbrella or independent but it appears that the development of Cork and Shannon has been inhibited somewhat by the fact that, from Aer Rianta's point of view, Dublin has been the big success story. If I believed the other two airports could be successful, although I have an open mind on that, I would be for that independence.

I refer to some points made in the course of the debate. The Attorney General's advice on any issue is never made public; it is used as a basis for Government statement. That is true under all Governments. I can remember Deputy John Bruton, when he was Taoiseach, being pressed to publish the Attorney General's advice on this and that and he quite properly declined to do so.

A point was made about the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach backs the decisions that have been made in Government, but he also has responsibility for ensuring the unity of the Government. He has primary responsibility for relations with the social partners. He has to do diplomatic political work with the constituent parts of the Government in terms of social partnership.

Senator Ross persists with the fallacy regarding social partnership. Social partnership is not just about pay deals; it has always been something far broader than that. I am sure the Minister recognises that it is important that a consensus be reached with the social partners. That does not mean the Minister does not have a responsibility to lead the debate and give momentum to policy, but at the end of the day social partners need to be brought round.

I was a bit amused when a member of the Opposition mentioned the example of Liam Cosgrave. I am not sure whether that Member was referring to the former Taoiseach or his son voting against the party but my recollection is that the person did not stay in office too much longer after that.

There was a reference by several speakers to the rail link to Shannon. That is important to complete the infrastructure works being done on the N18. As I mentioned to the Taoiseach at a party meeting, the N24 also leads into Shannon from the Tipperary-Waterford direction.

Now, with the conclusion of the Luas, there is obviously a pressing need for a rail link to Dublin Airport. Quite rapidly we will need at least two of them, I believe. There will be the metro, from St. Stephen's Green, but I would also like to see the airport linked up to the national rail system.

Reference was made, principally by Senator Ross, to relations between the chief executive of Aer Rianta and the Minister for Transport. These were problems also faced by the Minister's predecessor as regards another State transport company. There are a couple of oddly worded provisions in the Bill. Section 7(7), for example, states:

Aer Rianta and each company shall provide to the Minister all such information and other assistance as the Minister may require for the purpose of or in connection with the restructuring.

Should this not be taken for granted? Does it need to be stipulated in legislation? Then there is an even odder provision in section 18, where a Minister gives a direction to Aer Rianta, "the direction shall be in writing and addressed to the person or undertaking concerned". There are paragraphs about what constitutes delivering and receiving the direction. I do not believe that chief executives and boards of semi-State bodies should be entirely compliant or silent where they believe there are issues at stake. I believe they have a duty from their knowledge and experience of the business to make representations to Ministers, particularly before decisions are taken. There are times when they need to make reasoned arguments in public.

However, I do not agree with boards or chief executives of State companies engaging in a systematic guerilla-type campaign against a Minister or the Government, amounting to the systematic undermining of the Government policy with which one disagrees. A State company cannot be run on that basis. The ultimate responsibility rests with the Minister and the Government. If there is absolutely fundamental disagreement, I believe the board, chief executive or whoever is involved, has to consider their positions. It is not a way to run State companies, and I deeply regret the manner in which aspects of this debate have been conducted.

To conclude, obviously I have a particular concern with the future of Shannon Airport because of the region of the country I come from. We are all concerned to see Shannon flourish in the future. We all recognise that protectionism is not an option in the long run. It will not be possible or viable, even in the medium term. We need sufficient capacity and confidence to be able to fly without the type of supports that existed in the past — to be able to provide that transatlantic service and be able to find other links. I certainly hope that one of the main justifications of this legislation is to allow — excuse the pun — Shannon and Cork in particular to fly. Dublin is flying. There is no problem about that. The only problem is the sheer capacity with the ever-growing numbers. It is different for Shannon and Cork. In the last analysis I do not believe the present system fully works. It is too lopsided. On that basis I would be prepared to back the Minister. It seems to me there are many safety nets in place to prevent disaster. This stuff about bankers calling in loans etc. is ludicrous scaremongering, as far as I can see. A propaganda war is going on and we might as well not blind ourselves to that. I am prepared not just to vote for the Bill but also to support it, primarily on the basis that it will give our main regional airports a better chance.