Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and the aviation action plan, although I do not think the term is appropriate. I see no connection between the interesting matters of Dublin Airport and the sale of Aer Lingus.

It has not been that long since the House spoke about Dublin Airport and the approach we should take there. I noticed with some amusement as I listened to the Minister's contribution that one of the decisions in the action plan is the completion of pier D as an appetizer to the building of a completely new terminal. It is the same pier D which could and should have been completed long before now had not the interference of the current and previous Governments stopped the project in its tracks. If it had not been for that interference, pier D would be built by now.

As for the new terminal itself, it is perhaps reassuring to learn about the very detailed process that will be carried out before it will be built. However, these are perfectly normal actions that would be taken completely for granted in any public building project. They are being trumpeted as if there is something unique about them. Somebody should tell the Minister that it is not new to look before one leaps, to consider carefully what one builds before it is built and to ensure the money spent is well spent. This is standard operating procedure — or it should be. It may have been necessary to fluff up these details in order to turn this into a full blown action plan. The fact that the Minister has chosen to stress elements that should be part of any building project suggests he is making a hard sell of this. I wish the new board at Dublin Airport all the best for the future. As far as I am concerned it should be able to get on with the job and should be judged on the quality of what it succeeds in doing.

After much huffing and puffing the Government has decided to sell off Aer Lingus once again. This will be the third time in recent years that it has got to this preliminary stage of selling off the airline. This has been long discussed but the argument never appears to move forward. Perhaps it will now. First, Aer Lingus had to be sold off because it was almost bankrupt. Then we were going to sell it off because it was making a great deal of money. Regardless of the circumstances the answer has always been to sell off the airline. The only reason it has not been sold before now is that the Government has lacked the courage to go through with the deal.

When we debated the Goldman Sachs report here at the end of last year, I surprised more than a few Members by suggesting that on the basis of that report — perhaps it was not expected because of my business background — selling off Aer Lingus at that point was not such a good idea. Nothing that has happened in the past six months has caused me to change my mind on the matter. At the time Senator Mansergh was surprised that such an opinion came from a business person. I have two problems with the sale, one is the price and the other is what we give away. The Goldman Sachs report made it clear that the only way we can sell Aer Lingus is at a discount price. The Minister stated:

I now want to deal with the concerns on key strategic matters which have been expressed in the context of the State reducing its shareholding in Aer Lingus. These concerns relate to issues such as the loss of the Aer Lingus brand, loss of direct transatlantic services and the loss of slots at Heathrow.

He further stated:

Retaining ownership of over 25% means, under Irish company law, that the Government cannot be forced to sell its shares and can also deny other shareholders the ability to pass special and extraordinary resolutions such as making changes to the memorandum and articles of association.

That is the bit that scares me about the price. Would any of us running our own pension fund invest in a company where the 25% shareholder states it is putting into the memorandum and articles of association conditions that specify certain matters that would be protected regardless of whether it would make commercial sense? If that were the case, why would anyone buy such a company at the high price we would hope to achieve?

Either we hold on to the airline or we sell it all off. I am not a believer in holding on to 25% and hoping that the majority shareholder would take an interest in it. That is a bad decision. We should decide to hold on to Aer Lingus and sack the board if it does not do a good job. We have done this in the past with State companies. The benefit to Aer Lingus of the slots in Heathrow is not unlike infrastructure such as roads or railways. The State should own this infrastructure. The Goldman Sachs report made clear that the only way we can sell Aer Lingus is at a discount price. We will have to sell the airline at a price that is far below its true value. We would be better off holding on to it and financing its fleet replacements from our own resources. We can do that although it is against my usual thinking in this area.