Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House to address this issue. I assure him that we as a party are as delighted as he is to address this issue in this House, express views about it and put questions to him.

In my contribution I will do my best to respond directly to the points made by the Minister in his contribution. I want to focus on two issues directly, the first of which is the statement the Minister has just made about the appointment of directors and the role they can play in this decision and in moving the issue forward in the future. The second is the role of the shareholding the Government has in Aer Lingus and what can be done to use it to bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion.

I am approaching this issue from a different perspective. I am a north side Dubliner. I have lived and worked in Dublin all my life. I do not work or live in the west or in any of the areas that have been most vociferous in raising this issue but I am as committed as I possibly can be to resolving it. This is not an issue about whether connectivity to Heathrow is restored and so on but a broader issue about balanced regional development for the entire country. If we cannot deliver that, it will be a debacle from which everyone will suffer, not just people living in the west who will be affected by it but the entire country. This is not just an issue for the west and counties near that region. It is a national issue about the way we want to plan for the development of our country and ensure we have the infrastructure in place so that as an economy, the entire country can be competitive as we move forward.

These are not just my views on the issues involved. These views are expressed in the national development plan. They were the views of the Government as we moved into the general election and as expressed in its manifesto during that election. The national development plan leaves us under no illusion regarding the importance of balanced regional development. It points out three reasons, the first of which is the need for proper national infrastructure. The second is the need for that infrastructure to work in delivering prosperity to all regions, both rural and urban, and the third is the need to use that infrastructure to ensure economic activity is spread throughout the country.

This issue was recognised by the Government in the run-up to the general election in its manifesto and that of its constituent parties. The Fianna Fáil general election manifesto, The Next Steps, specifically highlighted the need for the development of Shannon Airport to ensure it had a range of options to allow for long-term development. The Green Party, in its document, called for that also. It quoted Teagasc and referred to the need to avoid regional imbalance and the need for infrastructure to make that happen. The Progressive Democrats Party, which has been very vocal on this issue, particularly in the letters pages of some of our national newspapers, talked about the need for national development and for infrastructure to ensure a sea change in regional development.

This commitment was made again before the general election. In April 2007, the then Minister for Transport, in response to a question from an Independent Deputy, emphasised the need to retain these slots, the importance of connectivity to the overall development of the region and made clear that it was in the national interest to ensure the best possible use was made of them. Now, despite these assurances, general election manifesto pledges, Dáil statements and commitments in the programme for Government, we find ourselves in this mess.

The consequences have been clearly spelled out by those living in the region and by national commentators. Almost 94% of business interests in the region say this will have a negative impact on economic activity, while 92% of chief executives in the region say this is a bad decision for the area that will affect the work they do and the income they can deliver.

Specific businesses are crying out about the difficulties this will cause. Element Six, which employs 630 people, uses 2,000 seats on the Shannon to Heathrow route every year. Are we really saying that the withdrawal of those 2,000 seats will ensure those 630 people will still have their jobs in a year's time and that this will not affect them? Of course it will affect them, as we can see from statements by the American Chamber of Commerce that it has €35 billion invested in the region across 129 companies and that the change in Government policy will have a negative impact on its ability to maintain that prosperity and investment.

I draw a comparison between the Minister's statement to the House and the decentralisation programme. In that programme, the Government claimed it wanted to decentralise public service bodies throughout the country to ensure the fair allocation of economic activity, the maintenance of quality of life and that infrastructure does not suffer from one centre hogging all investment. Although I have major difficulties with the practice, I support the theory and the Government was articulate in promoting it. To say, however, that we want to decentralise our public services while at the same time removing essential public infrastructure that ensures that not only public bodies can work but also private services is plainly contradictory. I do not say this to score political points. Such a contradiction will affect people's jobs and incomes.

The Minister spoke about the role directorscan or cannot play. It beggars belief that two vacancies on the board of Aer Lingus lay unfilled for so long since privatisation. It is inconceivable that the Government and other interests at the highest level were unaware these discussions were taking place. While they were taking place, the people and the Government were not represented at the board to make an input.

I am fortunate to have been a director of a private company and a public body. I have experience of the workings of boards of directors. It is all about setting a mandate and a framework within which commercial and individual decisions will be made. Surely if these people had been present, they would have had the opportunity to ask what mandate we are giving the organisation to deliver commercial success and to insist wider policy considerations be taken into account. If trade unions can legitimately make those points at board meetings, surely representatives of the Government, the people and regions that will be affected should be able to do the same. The fact that the Government is only trying to appoint those people now demonstrates its incompetence in managing this issue.

We move on to the role of the 25% stake. As I was preparing for this debate, I looked at a statement made by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Séamus Brennan, about the role of Shannon Airport and Aer Lingus in the future. In 2004 in this House, he was discussing legislation relating to the airport and he said the people best able to determine the future of the airport were the people of the Shannon region themselves, who should be able to participate in the discussions taking place there and not just receive some memorandum from Dublin. In this case it appears the memorandum was not even written. The people in the region sought representation on the issue did not have board representatives to make their case and it is clear that Government direction that could have been given through use of the shareholding did not happen. The Minister made a number of statements about this.

What is the point in our having such a shareholding if we cannot use it to influence the commercial decisions of Aer Lingus in a way that will have a substantial impact on the development of the western region and the country as a whole? Is there any doubt that President Sarkozy or Chancellor Merkel would use such a shareholding to make that point and to ensure the economic success of the airline was compatible with the needs of the country?

We must respect the investors and management but we also must respect the people of the west and those who have an interest in balanced regional development. History will be quoted back to me in this debate about the role of Seán Lemass as Minister for Industry and Commerce in establishing Shannon Airport. If we looked back on our history, however, we would not make this mistake. Seán Lemass talked about the State playing an active role in delivering national development overall, something he also did as Taoiseach. Would he make these decisions? If we had studied our history, this would not be happening. The Government will go down in history as responsible for this but I am more concerned about the jobs and incomes of those who have been affected by this decision. They should not be consigned to history. The Government should play a role in ensuring that does not happen.