Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and his officials to the House. When the Leader states that the Bill before us is premature, rushed and bad legislation, it is time for us all to look at it in more detail and wonder why. However, when she then says she will support the Government legislation, it is no wonder so many people are cynical about politics. I certainly admire her honesty and respect her opinion on the matter. The double-speak in Fianna Fáil, however, where one person says one thing and the Minister says something else, is typical of what the public is witnessing on a daily basis with this Government. It is blundering on in the hope that the public will not notice the lack of leadership, decisiveness and cohesion.

Aer Rianta reported a drop in after-tax profits from €36 million to €20.2 million for 2003, while the turnover rose by 33.8% to €436.9 million, with the income from airport charges up only 1.5%. The company claims that the aviation revenue at Dublin has fallen dramatically since the regulatory price cap was introduced by the Commission for Aviation Regulation in 2001. The company also suffered last year from poorer profitability in its hotel subsidiaries and overseas operations, while the extra throughput at the airports — particularly Dublin — did not manifest in extra profits. Aer Rianta blames what it calls "aggressive capping of landing" charges for the latest out-turn. It insists that the Commission for Aviation Regulation keeps landing charges unrealistically low, while airlines, such as Ryanair, argue that they are too high. I concede the Minister must strike a balance between those two points of view.

The Taoiseach has consistently stated that he believes that Aer Rianta must remain State-owned and is opposed to privatisation. He regards the maintenance of all jobs at Aer Rianta as essential. The Minister stated in the Dáil on 27 January that he had given repeated assurances about jobs, in the context of the development of the new independent boards. A couple of days later he also stated that he was battling with the Minister for Finance as regards financial aspects of the break-up. How may guarantees be given as regards jobs when agreement cannot be reached between the two Ministers on financial aspects of the break-up, such as the distribution and ownership of assets?

Should the House pass this legislation, we will be shaping part of the future of Irish aviation policy a generation. Yet the House is being asked to debate this Bill with no business plan before it. How can we realistically be asked to debate and pass such important legislation without the necessary financial reports and statistics which are of paramount importance for giving us the information we need to make a balanced judgment on this Bill? There is a massive public deficit of information as regards a number of items — strategies and plans for the new entities; capital expenditure and investment plans; management team and operational plans; the nature of ongoing relationships with existing Aer Rianta operations; financial projections including cash and debt management; and pricing policies and interface with the regulator. Without the information, it is ludicrous to proceed with the Bill and ask Senators to make decisions on it. There is a huge imbalance between the growth of passenger numbers in Dublin compared with Shannon and Cork. Shannon's cost base is significantly higher than can be justified. There has been limited success in attracting low-cost airlines, aviation's fastest-growing sector. According to Aer Rianta's 2003 report, 20.5 million passengers passed through Irish airports last year. That is up 5.8% on the previous year's figure. Of those passengers, 80% passed through Dublin Airport. The principal challenge facing the three airports is to develop and facilitate growth in passenger traffic. However, if the break-up proceeds as planned, Dublin Airport will be saddled with huge debts and may need a substantial increase in landing charges to fund improvements. Such a situation is the opposite of what is needed to attract more airlines. I am concerned that Shannon and Cork Airports, neither of which is financially strong, may be cut adrift and made do without Government funding and guarantees.

Fine Gael is not opposed to competition in the airport sector, or the break-up of Aer Rianta. However, we oppose the manner in which it is being carried out. The Minister must first prove the case for the break-up. Fine Gael is pro-enterprise and pro-competition, provided these are backed up by solid business rationale. The Minister may argue that the legislation will achieve this by instructing the boards to draw up their plans. However the Minister has wasted time with this legislation. He could have requested the boards to have their plans in place for us to examine at this stage. The presence of those plans would have ensured the merit of the legislation was evident to all. Had the three respective boards put forward their business rationale for breaking up Aer Rianta, Fine Gael could have proceeded with and supported any such legislation. Unfortunately, the Minister put the cart before the horse.

There are several unanswered questions relating to this legislation. What is the situation regarding a second terminal at Dublin Airport? Why does this legislation allow for airport charges to be regulated by the aviation director in Dublin, but not the other two airports? If airport charges are to rise at Cork and Shannon, will they affect the development of these two airports as low-cost carrier airports? This provision is in conflict with the Aviation Regulation Act 2001 which obliges the regulator to oversee all aspects where passenger numbers exceed 1 million. In excess of 1 million passengers use Cork and Shannon Airports, respectively.

What structures will be put in place for Aer Rianta subsidiaries such as Aer Rianta International and the ownership of the Great Southern Hotel Group? The Bill does not explain in any way how the ownership structures will be decided.

The break-up of Aer Rianta may or may not improve services. The proposed legislation is far-reaching yet it is not being debated in a meaningful manner because of a deficit of information. The legislation is premature and it is regrettable that the Minister cannot provide the background information necessary for Senators to make an informed decision.