Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I join with other speakers in welcoming the Minister for Transport to the House and I thank him for attending. Before I contribute to the debate I wish to comment on the manner in which the business of this House is carried out. I know there was significant pressure on the Leader and others in the House to make time for this very important legislation and I admire the stance that was taken. It is inconvenient for many Members, some of whom had made plans to be elsewhere — that could not be helped — but it is important for the House that we do our business in this fashion. We are reaping the benefits of this today, irrespective of what is before us.

This is important legislation. There are differing views in the House; some people, who have more experience than the rest of us, are probably better at speaking on this issue and I bow to their superior knowledge. However, there is an element of this legislation which is not desirable: the manner in which it is being disposed of before the summer recess. Rushed legislation is bad legislation. If there had been a proper consultation process there would be no Bill before us. There are so many sectoral groups involved — trade union representatives, workers, directors, those who use the airport — that it would have been better to engage in proper consultation before we got to this stage. That would not be an easy task, but it is important that the views of those on all sides be incorporated when formulating legislation as important and far-reaching as this.

The report compiled for ICTU and SIPTU by Farrell Grant Sparks emphasises the absence of business plans. Businesses in this country have been very successful in recent years. We have shown the way in terms of courses available to educate and train young people in business and we have performed well on the international stage. Much of this is down to good business management. It is about how businesses structure themselves and map the way forward. Many speakers have already alluded to the fact that no reference to business plans has been made, which is a gaping flaw in the legislation. The least that could have been done was to prepare a business plan for the post-break-up period. Do we know for certain, for example, whether the airports will be able to operate on a stand-alone basis? One section of the aforementioned report states:

The documents and explanations presented to us indicate that the Aer Rianta group is not currently equipped with comprehensive plans to deal with the business issues inherent in restructuring such as that envisaged. Neither, to our knowledge, is the group in possession of an appraisal of the probable financial viability of the three individual airports on a stand alone basis.

We can all be parochial and I will be so with regard to Cork Airport, regional development, supporting efforts to attract employment and the tourism economy of the south west. The region has one of the country's biggest employers in the pharmachem industry in the lower harbour. Cork is an important passage for tourists in and out of the area and provides many jobs in the Cork and Kerry region. There is little confidence among those who are in or using the services that after the passage of this legislation and the proposed restructuring of Aer Rianta, Cork Airport will be viable as a stand-alone airport. Nothing concrete is provided to give us the confidence to support legislation of this type.

The consultants went on to say in their report that not only was it unusual but also imprudent to embark on such a wide-ranging restructuring of any group, organisation or board in the absence of business plans. Illustrations presented in the Department's working papers envisage an upward revision of the price cap for airport charges arising from the break-up.

In recent times, prices of flights have reduced enormously, probably because of competition, availability and greater awareness. In the 1980s, for example, flights to the United Kingdom cost £200 or £250. They were so expensive that people took the other alternative and endured the long, arduous trip by boat. There was a time when we wondered whether we would ever see a time when flights would be affordable. Thankfully, we now have affordable flights for all sections of society. We must consider the issue that any increase in charges will be passed on to the consumer.

The consultants pointed out a number of other issues about difficulties they envisage in a number of areas, for example, capital profits to be generated, property income, the Cork lease, board issues, legal and pension matters. These will all give rise to difficulties after the passage of the legislation. Sufficient time has not been given to deal with or tackle them constructively at this stage.

I missed the Minister's address to the House earlier, but I am interested in hearing in his reply his views on the worker-director who is threatening legal action to prevent the break-up of the three airports. That director has received legal advice on the financial ramifications of the break-up and particularly on the debt. He has been advised that the break-up could trigger the early repayment of €250 million of a €484 million debt. This is enough to threaten the future viability of the company. The issue relates to stocks which are managed by a particular bank. However, there is a serious issue with regard to how this legislation could jeopardise terms and conditions of a loan. We are all aware that banking institutions do not hold back on recouping losses. They would certainly spot any element of this legislation which would allow them the opportunity to recoup costs.

This legislation straddles a number of important areas, from aviation policy to regional development and tourism. Why are we dealing with it now and why is there such urgency with the legislation? What is the real modus operandi of the Minister in introducing legislation so quickly on this issue? Is there something we should be aware of with regard to the viability of the company so that the status quo remains? Can he assure the House that the airports will be able to operate on a stand-alone basis after the proposed break-up?

I know many of these points have already been made but I wished to make these particular ones. I would appreciate the Minister's reply on them.