Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to start on the last point made by Senator Ivana Bacik. The world is now a smaller place and more people are travelling by aircraft. Aer Lingus profits in the company were up by €71 million in 2014, some 9% on the previous year. In its own right, Aer Lingus is growing exponentially year on year. Much has been said on this issue.

I am amazed that the Labour Party, a party that is supposed to represent the views and interests of workers, is allowing 15,000 people with pension entitlements to be effectively rail-roaded given that the Government is allowing individuals involved in the take-over bid to receive pension entitlements of almost €0.75 million. There are vested interests at play here. The workers in Aer Lingus and the taxpayer will be the fall guys. In the 1980s, people had to pay up to £400 for a flight to and from London. The arrival of competition, in the form of Ryanair which played a major role, reduced costs. The State had to allow autonomy in terms of Aer Lingus. The 2006 decision to dispose of 75% of the shareholding in Aer Lingus allowed that autonomy to take place and allowed the company to become more effective and efficient, but critically allowed the State to have a 25.1% shareholding in Aer Lingus.

Senator Ivana Bacik appeared to water down the significance of that shareholding. Anyone who plays the role of director in any company will know that a 21% or a 25% holding in any company is a significant and strategic underpinning of that company's decision-making power. The State has that role at the moment, a role in financing the company but also in developing the future direction of the company and the decision making process whether through routes, employment, efficiencies or the effectiveness of the company. That shareholding is being sold off to private investors, IAG. Some of its shareholding is owned by Qatar Airlines. Who can say whether it will have an influence over a future decision of British Airways in the years to come? We are not just dealing with a CEO, Mr. Willie Walsh, who appears before a committee of the House and provides assurances. We are dealing with shareholders living in the Middle East, controlling other airlines. We are diluting competition in an area where the State has tried in the past, under Fianna Fáil, to improve competition by allowing the company to become more efficient. British Airways must be laughing all the way to the bank because, effectively, its record is very poor when it comes to transatlantic routes in other regions. For example, when British Airways bought British Midland Airways, it brought about efficiencies by reducing the number of staff and the number of routes. It has almost driven British Midland Airways to the ground.

British Airways does not operate any transatlantic routes from Scotland, an issue which was a bone of contention during the recent referendum debate. It offers no transatlantic routes from the North of Ireland.Now it is telling us it will provide a commitment in the British Isles, if one wants to call it that, which is how it views it. This is a commitment to provide transatlantic routes out of Dublin. I simply do not buy it, because the record of British Airways does not stand up to scrutiny. In the future, what is to stop British Airways from breaking the seven-year commitment? The State or other interested parties may take it to court, but the very worst it could face would be a fine. No court can direct that it reinstate the routes. There is a lot of smoke and a lot of hot air. Ultimately, in my view, the Government is bowing down to the vested interests, including those who are involved in this decision-making process, riding roughshod over future pensioners in the company and ensuring that the individuals who are making the decisions will gain financially in a personal capacity. It is disgraceful. Ireland is a small country on the edge of the world. There is an economic argument that governments should not become involved in airline companies, and this was the basis of the 2006 decision to take a step back. However, given our geographical location, there is a need for the State to at least have an involvement in keeping prices and costs down for our punters, our consumers and all our constituents who want to travel to the USA or Europe. According to Pádraig Ó Céidigh, by selling the shares in Aer Lingus at a reduced price of at least 25% below what they are worth, we are selling a strategic State asset but we are also diluting competition within the airline industry, which will ultimately result in prices rising and routes being diluted. Eventually, if we want to travel to the States, we will have to travel through London, unless Ryanair, which is a private company, intervenes.

The decision does not stand up to scrutiny. The report was a joint report and not just an Aer Lingus report. It was a report commissioned in February by Aer Lingus and IAG. It showed that jobs in ground handling would be slashed by 20%, jobs in catering by 40%, maintenance jobs by 15%, and heavy maintenance and eastern European staff by 25%. We talk of 635 additional jobs, but those jobs would have been created anyway due to the growth of air traffic through Dublin Airport and the regional airports. Those jobs were in the pipeline anyway. However, what will happen is that jobs will be cut. The company and the shareholders, including Qatar Airways, will strive to reduce the bottom line, to increase efficiencies within the company, to reduce employment numbers and to increase profits. The State will have no input. Shame on those involved in selling off this asset.