Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister to the House for this debate. Recently I met a Dublin businessman who employs 50 people in a medium-sized industry. He informed me that 20 years ago if one of his machines broke down in Dublin he would be forced to wait until the following day to book an Aer Lingus flight to Birmingham, stay overnight and fly back the next day. His machine would then need to be recommissioned and it would be down for three days. Now he can book his flights for the next month in advance, whether or not he travels and his machinery is back in operation within a few hours. We are very lucky in this small country on the periphery of Europe to have two of the most successful airlines in Europe, Ryanair and Aer Lingus. It is ironic to be debating this subject on the 20th anniversary of the establishment of Ryanair and in the knowledge of its extraordinary success. We are fortunate that Aer Lingus has survived.

This situation pertains today not because of regulation but rather because of competition. Ryanair started that competition 20 years ago and set the standard for Europe and perhaps the world for competition in the aviation sector. Aer Lingus has been forced to follow. Much has been made by Opposition speakers of the differences between the Government parties on the aviation package. Much newsprint has been expended and much radio and television time devoted to the aviation package announced on 18 May. It was suggested that divisions existed about the work practices at the new terminal and that differing views were expressed on the flexibility of the new terminal and the efficiency of the existing terminal.

I refer to the issue of efficiency at the second terminal. I wish to read the following quotation:

There's going to have to be a different kind of work practice and different kinds of flexibilities than are in the present arrangements. That has been clear from the start. That is an issue where people can put forward their plan.

That is not a quotation from a member of the Progressive Democrats. Those are the words of the Taoiseach, which match perfectly and consistently the view expressed by his partners in Government in all press statements and at Government regarding what we set out to try to achieve. What we wanted was the best deal for the taxpayer in terms of the cost of the terminal and the future of Aer Lingus. I hope this quotation puts an end to that particular claim by the Opposition. I also hope that newsprint, radio and television airtime can focus on the many policy areas on which the supposed alternative Government agrees. That airtime should be very short.

Almost 12 months ago this House debated the State Airports Bill, involving the break-up of Aer Rianta. In light of the success of the break-up of Aer Rianta, particularly for Cork and Shannon, I remind the House of some the contributions made here at that time. It might be uncomfortable listening for some Members, so I will keep the quotes anonymous. One Opposition Senator said:

This Bill will have major implications for taxpayers, the workers directly employed by Aer Rianta and the travelling public [which, I presume is the consumer] . . .The absence of business plans and the mixed signals from different reports, such as the PricewaterhouseCoopers report or the Farrell Grant Sparks, a report commissioned by the unions, suggested that the combined value of Shannon and Cork Airports will drop by €110 million following the break-up, are very worrying . . . We seem to be approaching this from the wrong direction . . . We are being asked to take a leap into the dark and this is totally unsatisfactory from everyone's point of view.

Another Senator referred to shortcomings in the infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of Shannon Airport and said:

There is no rail link, the bus link is not very good and although the roads are not improving, they are not great . . . While one intuitively feels there is scope for improvement at Shannon, I do not see how a totally independent company, as opposed to independent management, which takes a certain amount of independent initiative, will improve business at Shannon. The Minister has failed utterly to persuade me and many other people that such an improvement will be achieved.

Another Senator said:

My fear is — I do not say this in anger, despair, in shouting or excited tones — that as the Government can no longer subsidise Shannon Airport, it will fall prey to other forces which would seek to use it for their commercial ends . . . We are a very small country and the idea that competition would arise and be dynamic between the three airports is a paltry excuse for putting forward the Bill.

Let me outline what has happened at Shannon. The airport has recently concluded a deal with Ryanair involving flights to Paris, Prestwick, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Liverpool, Stockholm, Milan, Luton, Gatwick and Stanstead. It has also negotiated a deal for a Boston to Shannon route and a Chicago to Dublin route. It has said that its future must be commercial rather than regulated. This has happened in a mere 11 months.

Some Senators said we were taking a leap into the dark and it could not happen. It has happened. This shows what competition has done around the country and it is good for the regions. Ryanair has promised 350,000 passengers this year. By 2005-06 it has promised 1.4 million passengers. This is the single biggest tourism initiative in the country. These flights will be sold throughout the year and not just during the summer. Anybody can sell Ireland from May to August. The difficulty is in selling it off-season. These flights will be all year around and will bring people to the mid-west and western areas, which shows what we achieved last year. Those flights have already received 450,000 pre-bookings, which shows what competition has achieved.

On the building and location of a second terminal at Dublin Airport, it has been agreed that after extensive consultation with the airlines, the Dublin Airport Authority will set about costing and constructing the new terminal. Again that process will be verified. When it has been built real competition will again take place because the operator of the second terminal will be appointed following a competitive tendering process. In that tendering process all costs and prices will need to be on the table as if in a glass bowl. I would not have any problem if the Dublin Airport Authority was to win the contract. Up to now the unions were happy to enter into an agreement for the provision of an independent terminal. They had no problem with the word "independent" and were even willing to buy a 15% shareholding as opposed to getting it for free.