Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I thank Senator Finucane for sharing his time with me. I congratulate the Government on publishing the Goldman Sachs report. However, I would like to focus on what the report does not contain. It does not contain any discussion on the merits or demerits of the State putting more equity capital into Aer Lingus. It does not refer to that matter because it was excluded specifically from its terms of reference. The report takes as its starting point the assumption that this is a closed issue because the State has already decided it will not invest more capital in Aer Lingus. The consultants worked on that basis but we should not consider it a closed issue, particularly in view of the report's conclusions. The question of the State investing more equity capital should be re-opened.

This is an interesting report which considers the various options open to the Government in seeking new investors. It is clear that just one of the options is a runner on the basis that the State is excluded from investing money, namely, the sale of part of the Government's stake in the company through a flotation on the stock market. The report knocks on the head comprehensively any other approach. However, it makes it clear that the sale of a stake in the airline must be part of raising fresh capital for the company's expansion, which is interesting. In other words, the Government must be prepared to put whatever it gets from a sale back into the company, not into the national pensions reserve fund as happened with Eircom.

The Goldman Sachs report pours cold water on the prospects of the Government being able to run the airline in the strategic interests of the country when the State is reduced to a level of 25%. I know 25% is not necessarily the correct figure, but if the State holds on to some stake in the airline, it opens up the prospect of the Heathrow slots being sold off or put to more profitable use than bringing people to Ireland. It also opens up the possibility that a future investor-owned airline would use its aircraft for routes that were more profitable than ones linking Ireland to its main tourism and commercial interests. It comes down to a single option — they did not have a choice — which is not particularly attractive and will be difficult to carry off with success, namely, the flotation.

This brings me back to my original point that this issue cannot be properly considered if we exclude any possibility of the State investing more equity in the airline. Coming from my background, I tend to oppose the idea of the State running commercial businesses. I am even more against the idea of turning over essential parts of the national infrastructure to purely profit-driven businesses and enterprises, as we did so disastrously in the case of Eircom, which was a misjudgment. If we can spend many millions of euro building a road network throughout the country, is it all that mad to consider a few hundred million euro on building a transport network that will guarantee our links with the outside world?

I found it difficult to come to this conclusion. When I started with the Goldman Sachs report, I started from a similar viewpoint to Senator Morrissey, which believes the State should not be involved in running businesses. I had the experience in the past of being chairman of An Post. I came to the conclusion at the time that the State must be involved in certain businesses. I do not think we have a choice in the case of Aer Lingus between a low cost airline or a different kind of airline. We have a choice between a low cost airline or no airline. When it comes to making a decision, it will be in management's hands, but directed by a Government stakeholder. I suggest that, if necessary, we go back to Goldman Sachs and include the option which was excluded in the first instance.

We must re-examine this aspect because it is a worthwhile proposal. We are at a crossroads and a number of Senators spoke about the urgency of making a decision. We began from the wrong premise. We should re-examine this decision-making aspect but not exclude the possibility to which I referred. This may be an exception to what I as a business person would normally say. I know our colleagues and partners in Government would say that this is something in which the State should not be involved but the issue should be re-examined.