Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

Senator Cox referred to monopolies. I do not see how breaking up the airport into three units while retaining it in State ownership is breaking a monopoly. The airport is either state-owned or it is not. Having listened to Senators who support the legislation and who do not have the same concerns as expressed by the Leader, one has no doubt that the legislation is the first step towards privatisation. It is as though an idealised world will appear after the break-up. However, I do not believe that will happen.

Senator McDowell and others referred to the default mechanism, in terms of calling in enormous debts or causing insolvency, that will be trigged by the passing of this legislation. The Minister has not responded in any meaningful way to the concerns expressed about that. I am a solicitor and know that before signing off on something in the commercial world one must first address fully issues surrounding debts. A solicitor would not sign off on something which contained the sort of uncertainties which surround this legislation in terms of calling in debts and so on. That is the context in which this House is being asked to sign-off on this legislation.

Why are waivers not to be negotiated before the legislation is passed? Why are we speaking of introducing waivers once it is passed? We need to know if such waivers will be put in place. That is not an issue which could be retrospectively addressed by legislation. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. The Minister has based his business reasoning for this legislation around the PwC working papers. I refer in that regard to the consultants' report commissioned by SIPTU which raised significant concerns about the legislation and states in its conclusions:

....it is our view that the proposed restructuring, as outlined in the PWC Working Papers, has not been robustly tested, nor has the business case been proven. Accordingly, we cannot determine from the information available to us that Aer Rianta cpt would be placed in a better position as a consequence of the proposed restructuring.

For these reasons, we can provide no comfort to the employees of the Aer Rianta cpt, whom you represent, and who are an important stake holder in Aer Rianta cpt, that the proposed restructuring would successfully address the challenges facing the company.

The report, on the status of the PwC working papers, points out that the papers: "....are not intended to present a business case, nor do they constitute an appraisal or valuation of any of the securities, assets or businesses of Aer Rianta cpt" and that the totality of the financial information being used by the Minister comes from these papers. The Minister has not cited any business case for his proposal. There are no grounds for Senator Mansergh's assertion that the best chance lies in creating three independent airports.

Why is this legislation being rushed through the House today? I am sure the Minister will reject any amendments to the Bill given that the Dáil is in recess. The Minister stated that following advice from the parliamentary counsel the drafting error referred to does not need to be dealt with by amendment from the House. I am sure the Minister will deal with that matter on Committee Stage tomorrow. However, if such a drafting error required amendment then Senators should have the opportunity to make the amendment without returning the legislation to the Dáil for confirmation. That is the role of the Seanad. We have two Houses to ensure proper scrutiny of legislation, something which is not happening now. It is insulting of the Minister to deal with the Seanad in this way.

The introduction of this legislation following the local and European elections illustrates that the Government has not learned anything from the elections. Perhaps the only lesson learned was that picked up on by the Tanáiste — that we keep doing what we are doing and remain arrogant in rushing through legislation despite valid advice from opponents to particular measures. Senator O'Rourke was brave in her criticism of the legislation. Her criticism of the Government's proposal to introduce third level fees forced the Government to change its position in that regard. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen in this case.

An indication of change which would provide people with hope in terms of the nature of parliamentary politics and the Fianna Fáil party would be for a member who feels so strongly about a particular issue to vote against the Government. Once this legislation is passed it is a fait accompli. We may return to amend this legislation but it is unlikely we will return to rescind it. As I stated earlier, the next step is privatisation. Who in the Government parties will stand against that proposal?