Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)

Rendition is a separate issue. We have talked about that and it is totally separate from the movement of troops. The volume of business is the same but Shannon is winning a greater amount of that business from our friends from Germany, England and other airports because it is able to offer a better service. Management has more control and has greater capacity to react to the needs of the airlines ferrying the troops. That is a positive development. The quality of the service being offered is better. The management team is more adaptable and easier to work with and is able to offer a more affordable service. The Minister has been at Shannon on a number of occasions and will be aware that enormous progress has been made there in terms of growth.

It is widely accepted by management, unions and staff that there is still a requirement to restructure at Shannon. However, we have gone a long way in proving the viability of the airport in terms of identifying ways of increasing the business. There was little point in talking about restructuring until such time as it was made clear to the workers that there was a viable business. In my view that has been achieved. Notwithstanding that, the board and the management must recognise that the workers are protected in legislation. There can be no mandatory redundancies. The best way to deal with that issue is to ensure the business grows sufficiently to accommodate the workers and ensure they have a viable future. That can be done. That there are no compulsory redundancies is not sufficient to stand on that premise. It is critical that the business is grown.

The board and management at the airports, particularly at Shannon, need to engage more with staff on the issue of outsourcing. The catering section has been under fire for some time. The management has been suggesting, through the board, that the only solution is to outsource that component. I disagree. I am not a business expert but having discussed the matter with a number of people who have an interest in this area it is clear there is a viable business in the catering section and the management and the board must be more open to ideas on how that business might be part of a restructured operation. Given that there can be no mandatory redundancies the board will have to work with the hand of cards it is dealt. I hope that happens without delay. There is a need to look at all the alternatives in this area.

The debt-free issue which has been raised by Senator Ryan and others is of critical importance to the development of the business plan. In Shannon it is probably not as big an issue because the board does not believe it will end up with anything other than a debt-free facility. I understand the debt at Shannon is approximately €70 million, which is an historical debt, unlike that at Cork where the debt is more recent. However, that is not to minimise its impact on Cork. My concern in regard to Shannon is that there has been relatively low capital expenditure during the past two or three years. Those who understand the aviation sector will be aware there must be planned upgrade and maintenance of lighting facilities, runways and all the ancillary services to ensure the asset is maintained in order that one does not have to spend a huge amount of money some years hence. Capital expenditure of approximately €8 million is needed annually to maintain the facilities.

Senator Ryan has identified the reserves issue. There is no doubt that is creating the bulk of the problem. The inability of Dublin Airport Authority to spin off into the two separate companies, without the necessary reserves under company law, has created a problem. There is no point dwelling on the reason this was allowed to occur or whether better or different advice should have been obtained. The intent at the time was to ensure the airports had sufficient capacity to manage their business, expand their market, generate increased numbers of passengers and provide better facilities for customers.

A review of the progress achieved in realising the aims set down in the legislation is required. Policy could then be examined in light of the outcome. It is possible, for example, that the spin-off of assets to three individual companies will prove unnecessary. I propose such a review on the basis of the position at which we have arrived as opposed to the original aim. Given the substantial progress achieved to date, perhaps the establishment of three independent, statutorily constituted companies operating under the provisions of company law is no longer required. It is this proposal that is causing the problem. The airports are working well in the current hiatus. While I am not an expert in this area, I suggest that the Dublin Airport Authority be restructured to act as an umbrella encompassing all the State airports.

When the legislation was first debated in the House I indicated that three independent companies would not be necessary and proposed the establishment of an umbrella organisation consisting of three boards, each with some degree of autonomy. While questions on the division of responsibility and control would arise, these could be resolved. The manner in which the airport boards have worked together in recent months has demonstrated they are capable of achieving the growth levels originally sought. We should review plans for the three major airports because any such examination might conclude that the transfer of debt or assets is not necessary.