Alan Kelly (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Máire Hoctor, who is from my own county. I tabled this Adjournment matter in anticipation that we would not succeed in amending yesterday's Order if Business. Today is effectively D-Day for Shannon Airport. If the motion before the other House is passed, we will be on a slippery slope in terms of the future of the mid-west and of Aer Lingus. It will be detrimental to the entire western region from a business, social and tourism perspective. I will not go into the details because everybody is aware of them.

The Government motion refers to its "disappointment" at Aer Lingus's action. It is the function of Dáil Éireann to take action, not to agree motions of disappointment. I have never heard of such a motion before. My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who met representatives of the Workers Alliance and Atlantic Connectivity Alliance yesterday, asked whether we can now expect Dáil Éireann to start crying because it is disappointed about this issue. What we want from the Dáil is action. The motion is simply a smokescreen to cover the Government's lack of direction on this issue.

I am particularly disappointed with the position taken by the mid-western representatives in the Dáil, including those from my own county. They have had no fixed position on this crisis. At the outset, the Government claimed it could not intervene in this matter. I notice, however, that all subsequent announcements have claimed that the Government will not intervene. I daresay it is more accurate to say they will not intervene rather than they cannot do so. My party does not oppose the privatisation of Aer Lingus on ideological grounds but because we believe in the economic philosophy of externality, whereby market forces do not always deliver.

I have met workers' groups and the Atlantic Connectivity Alliance and believe they made their case very well. What was the intention of the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, when he privatised Aer Lingus? He does not exactly have a track record of producing results but this was the biggest of his many mistakes. The privatisation process was botched. The Minister stated in the Dáil that the 25.4% shareholding mentioned in the articles and memorandum of association were enough to ensure that the airline's slots, including those in Shannon, would be protected. If that is the case, why is the Government not using that shareholding to intervene? What is the point otherwise in keeping the stake?

I was interested to read the comments of representatives on the issue, including a letter to a newspaper by Senator Mary White in which she asked, "If this shareholding was not intended to influence the strategic development of the company in support of the Government's vision for the country, what purpose was envisaged for it?" I ask the same question. The entire issue was addressed with a form of thinking that beggars belief.

The Aer Lingus route between Shannon and Heathrow is the only sustainable option. Other hubs and airlines are welcome if they connect to Shannon but they will not be able to match the level of business and tourism represented by Aer Lingus. Why give up this profitable route in the first place? It was one of the few routes on which the airline did not have to drop its prices.