Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister, his officials and this Bill, which was initiated in this House. The convention serves an important practical purpose because aircraft leasing is an integral element in the operation of air companies of every type and size. Ireland has a track record in this area through, for example, the operations of Guinness Peat Aviation during the 1980s. As has been mentioned, this area is a tailor made addition to the international financial services in which we have been successful over the last 16 years. The success of the Minister and his Department in attracting this operation to Ireland against international competition was a considerable coup. We should also credit the Minister's predecessors, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, and Senator O'Rourke, who is now the Leader of this House. Upon our ratification of the convention, only one more signature will be needed for it to enter force.

I wish to use this opportunity to discuss related areas of air transport policy with which the Government is currently grappling. Leasing is relevant to the issues of ownership and acquisition of aircraft. The Government faces the issue of financing and securing the expansion of Aer Lingus. This decision will require detailed study and expertise. I have faith in the Minister, his advisers and the Government to come to the right decision.

I would make two or three points that I have made previously in this House on interests that must be safeguarded in regard to Aer Lingus because there is no doubt that Aer Lingus is a very valuable national asset with much goodwill and a track record. It also has the wider transatlantic connections that are vital to this country from an economic, social, cultural and tourism point of view.

One danger to be guarded against is that Aer Lingus, if it were to be privatised, would be swallowed up by a much larger airline which would subsume its interests. That does not necessarily have to be the case. I recall, for example, that there was much concern about Irish Distillers, which was a private company. It was taken over by Pernod Ricard some years ago without any obvious ill-effects in terms of the products used. We live in close proximity to British Airways and I would not like to see Aer Lingus become a satellite of its larger neighbour, even if it will, for the time being, be under an expert chief executive, Mr. Willie Walsh.

The second interest to be safeguarded is our transatlantic connections, not only from Dublin but also from Shannon. If it is possible for Cork to run transatlantic services I have no objection to that but it is essential to keep what we have; it does not have to be precisely on the existing basis. That may not be tenable in the medium to long term but it is essential that there is a certain minimum transatlantic traffic. I am aware there is some ambiguity about the ownership of the slots at Heathrow but the third interest is to ensure that Aer Lingus keeps those slots and that it keeps its name and identity because that, in a sense, is a marketing tool for Ireland.

The other aspect which is perhaps even more controversial is the question of ownership, operation and competition in airports. I take the point Senator Dooley made earlier about a race to the bottom, which we do not want. If one thinks of Shannon, in particular, where tourism traffic is a very important element, there must be a proper welcome, as there is currently, rather than something terribly basic.

One of the decisions the Government took last year was to separate the airports in terms of management. That is a more credible form of competition than what is sometimes talked of in regard to Dublin Airport. When people talk about competition between two airport terminals at Dublin, I wonder do they mean the sort of competition that there is, say, between the Bank of Ireland and AIB. The reality is that the terminals, whether conjointly or separately owned, are confined to one location. I see no possibility of locating an airport somewhere else in Dublin simply because the objections would be too great.

Many airports around the world have two terminals including Zurich, Delhi, etc. One terminal usually deals with domestic traffic and the neighbouring country and the other deals with traffic much further afield. Alternatively, it is divided up by airlines. Some airlines use terminal 1 and others use terminal 2 for all their flights. I do not agree with the notion that an airline like Ryanair, for the sake of argument, will be able to suddenly switch to another terminal because it has a minor row with the owners or that the managers of terminal 1 will be able to switch to terminal 2. That could not happen because of the level of disruption that would be involved.

The debate on this issue has become far too ideological. One must be realistic about the degree of competition. Efficiency and service to the public are what matters, not some mantra of an ideal competition that will only work to a limited extent in regard to airports. To the extent that there is competition between airports it is far more likely to be between Shannon, Cork and Dublin than between two terminals side by side.

There is also on occasion an anti-union undertone to some of the discussion, which I do not like. We ought to remind ourselves that this country's current prosperity to a level few of us expected to see 20 years ago is based to a substantial extent on social partnership. I do not hold with the idea that we can simply kick that overboard although, to be fair, I do not believe anybody in Government believes that. Social partnership has been maintained without break by all Governments over the past 20 years but the Minister would do a service were he to continue his efforts to inject some common sense and reality into the debate about two terminals. I am sure he has been doing that for a long time but we must get away from the artificial contradiction between competition on the one hand, which is good, and a State run operation on the other, which is bad.