Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ENTERPRISE AND TRANSPORT debate -
Thursday, 29 Jan 1998

Vol. 1 No. 3

Air Navigation and Transport (Amendment) Bill, 1997: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 14.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 24:
In page 13, lines 12 to 15, to delete subsection (5).
-(Deputy Stagg.)

At the previous meeting I described the smash-and-grab raid proposed under this section, whereby a large sum of money would be taken by the Minister for Finance from the company on vesting day without any apparent good reason. I was concerned that not alone would this money be taken, but that everything else required by the company, such as rates and corporation tax, would also have to be paid.

It is now generally accepted, following the debate in the Dáil yesterday, that duty free sales are a dead duck. I am very sorry to have to say that but, from what the Minister for Finance said yesterday, that appears to be the case. A further £26 million will arise from that decision. Can the Minister give an indication of the written down value of the assets of the company at this time so that we can know the level of the smash-and-grab raid which will occur on vesting day?

Are amendments Nos. 24 and 25 being taken together?

Yes, they are related.

On the previous day we asked for the historic written down value, which may be available in the annual accounts. My fear is the double whammy effect, whereby not only will Aer Rianta have to pay the CPT and rates in year one but will also have to, first, pay on vesting day for assets it has already acquired and paid for and, second, pay a dividend within year one. I was seeking to have the company independently valued and for it to pay only one amount, which would be equal to either the asset value or the dividend, which has been the cash surrender of about £14 million.

The Minister assured us they would not pillage the company but, other than her general reassurances, there was nothing specific. My fear was that there was a legal obligation on the Government to carry out the double whammy. It is important to have some assessment of the asset value because we know the dividend is likely to be between £10 million and £14 million based on current accounts.

The Deputies are correct in saying that not only will two payments be due, which I will go into later, but they will depend on which date we finalise our business. Local authority payments will fall due under the law. Fingal County Council, Clare County Council and Cork County Council will watch those matters closely as it will mean some revenue for them. The written down value is approximately £14.5 million, which corresponds with the dividend figure last year - whether that is coincidental is open to debate.

As I said, it is within the right of Deputies to push the matter but I have no doubt that no Government would wish to pillage the company to the extent of leaving it unable to carry out the development plans it outlined to me. That remains the position. Part of the Government decision contains an informal, although written, provision that, in the event of any difficulty arising, there can be some flexibility between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Enterprise. I do not know whether it is coincidental but the two figures are both approximately £14.5 million.

It is clear that the one-off payment of £14.5 million which will be taken on the basis of the assets will have to be paid.

Let us be quite clear that it will be paid.

On vesting day.

Yes, whatever; the dividend provides the flexibility.

Will the dividend which is available in that same period be affected negatively or downwardly by the same amount as the take from the company on the basis of its assets?

Is the Deputy asking if the amount of the dividend would be affected by the fact that the assets would be downplayed by £14.5 million?

I am sure that could be taken into account. The decision was the written down value at that time, which would be approximately £14.5 million. I am not sure what the dividend was in 1995 but in 1996 it was £14.5 million. Whether the total value of the company would be reduced because of taking off the written down value is another question. However, I think it would be taken into consideration.

In any case, the section provides for flexibility between the Minister for Finance and the Minister of the day. It is written into the Government decision. The written down value is £14.5 million, which will be paid. The other is subject to the matter being discussed, although it will appear in the abridged Estimates. The Government decision allows for discussions.

Which figure?

Both will be in the abridged Estimates.

I am worried about the effect of this. While there is flexibility on the amount there seems to be a requirement on the Government to take both the dividend and the asset value of the company in the same period.

No, there is no flexibility on the written down amount because that will happen when the Bill is enacted.

Could we deal with the written down figure first?

Can the Minister explain why this is being taken given that Deputy Yates said the company effectively provided these assets itself? What justification is there for the shareholder receiving the value of assets it did not provide in the first place? I do not understand the logic behind it. I understand why the Department of Finance would say it and why it would put pressure on the Minister to do it.

While much trojan work has been done by Aer Rianta, the original purchase of lands for the various airports was at the State's, that is the taxpayers', expense. It was a very good investment with which no one would quibble. It is incorrect to say the lands somehow fell out of the sky, because they were purchased.

Deputy Stagg said duty free is now a dead duck. It is not and I do not intend it to become one. The German Houses of Parliament have become strongly exercised on the matter. I received word this morning to the effect that they are willing to meet anyone interested in the topic. They have a general election pending, and we know how general elections and by-elections sharpen people so they wish to concentrate their minds on the issue of duty free, and Chancellor Kohl has issued a statement on the matter. The Germans are the major paymasters in Europe, so I am latching on to their argument.

Figures are available from Aer Rianta's annual reports showing the company invested £224 million since 1987. Prior to that, the Exchequer provided funding of £57 million. In the interim, Aer Rianta paid £207 million to the State, £136 million of which has been paid since 1987. Given the huge payback the State received from Aer Rianta on the basis of its pre-1987 investment in the airports and the £224 million invested by Aer Rianta, what is the justification for valuing the assets at £14.5 million and requesting the money from the company? It invested money itself, albeit with a guarantee from risk, and a very high value is being put on that although it was never called down. Aer Rianta is being punished very severely in this transfer.

The Taoiseach, when he attended the ECOFIN meeting in 1992, adopted a proposal from the Commission which it put together in 1991 effectively abolishing duty free and deferring the date of abolition until next year. A veto was available to the Taoiseach at the time which he did not exercise. The Irish Commissioner made it clear in a reply to Deputy Noonan quoted in the Dáil yesterday that there is no possibility of the Commission even considering bringing forward a new proposal on this. Aer Rianta will lose £26 million in duty free if this proposal goes ahead and that is a major consideration. We should not fool ourselves that it will be reversed just because German parliamentarians are now getting agitated about the matter. Their Minister also voted for it. It was a unanimous decision for which all finance Ministers voted, but it requires the Commission to bring forward a proposal to reverse it. The reply the Irish Commissioner sent to Deputy Noonan clearly indicates there is no possibility of that, and I presume he has sounded out his colleagues on the matter.

All these issues will affect Aer Rianta and it is unnecessary to take from it on vesting day this £14.5 million arising from the assets. I hope there is a possibility I am wrong about duty free, and I will do anything I can to assist the Minister in her valiant struggle to reverse the decision made in 1992. In the knowledge that all these issues will affect Aer Rianta in a very competitive era, I ask the Minister to look favourably on the amendment and remove the section obliging her to take the £14.5 million. It may well allow her to take a larger dividend than otherwise would be the case were the £14.5 million taken.

This Bill is long overdue and the Minister is to be congratulated on bringing it forward. The situation of Aer Rianta since its foundation has been bizarre. It has effectively been a management company with no assets. The Minister is now putting it on the same footing as other commercial State-sponsored bodies. In doing so, it is vital from the taxpayer's point of view and so as to have a proper oversight of the company's performance, that everything relating to assets should be properly done and that there should not be any false understatement of the valuation of assets or of the investment the State has made to date in Aer Rianta. It should be remembered the capital which drove Aer Rianta came from various capital budgets over the years. I have had some contact with the company over the years and I have heard no evidence from it that there is any quibble with the proposition put forward by the Minister. That deals with the first point. I understand Deputy Stagg's motives are well-intentioned but they are slightly off the wall.

It is very important we do not give any indication that we are not going to fight tooth and nail until the last hour on the subject of duty free. Whatever the motivations of the Commission on this in the past and whatever bizarre interpretation it had of the rules of competition, I believe it has made a fundamental error. It is incumbent on every Government which believes this is a serious issue - and most do - to use the devices available to suggest to the Commission that it should revisit the issue. Such devices exist. Ministers can use a degree of moral suasion on the Commission and they can make life difficult for it. Within the terms of the Treaty, the Parliament can make life difficult for it. The Council can request the Commission to revisit the issue. There must be significant lobbying. We should be positive. I welcome the news from the German Parliament because, as a committed European and someone who believes very strongly in the Treaty, I believe the decisions made and the attempt to wipe out duty free will create devastation. It is a servile attitude to a principle which was never meant to be carried to the extent it has by the Commission.

We are all on the same side. I commend the significant efforts the Minister has made. She is a formidable person. If we support her and get all European parliamentarians to speak with one voice on the issue and be as unequivocal as they are when it comes to hugging trees and other matters, we might make some progress on the issue. There is much evidence that the European Parliament has not been sufficiently vocal on this. I agree with Deputy Stagg that there is a danger and it is imperative we do not underestimate the degree of peril. At the same time, we should not in any way be defeatist on the issue.

I object to Deputy Roche's suggestion that my proposal is off the wall, foolish or stupid. It is no such thing; it is well reasoned. I explained that I am worried the number of matters with which Aer Rianta must deal at the one time will cause difficulty, especially as the Minister's hands will be tied and both she and the Minister for Finance must take this money in accordance with the law. I spoke to representatives of Aer Rianta who are concerned about that. The company has plans for an important investment programme at Shannon Airport, Dublin Airport and the regional airports - valued at £230 million - with which it wants to proceed, but this provision may delay part of the programme.

Will the Minister consider deleting this section which requires her and the Minister for Finance to take this money from Aer Rianta? If the money in question was not taken, I am sure the dividend, based on the profitability of the company, would be increased.

I understand Deputy Stagg's concerns but there has been a serious problem regarding the way the assets of State-sponsored bodies have been treated. I refer, for example, to the way Coillte Teoranta was established. We will never obtain a good and accurate indication of performance because the assets have not been handled well.

I have tremendous confidence - as I am sure does Deputy Stagg -in Aer Rianta, which is an extraordinarily vigorous company and has performed well. The company has a good management structure, excellent staff and it has broken new ground throughout Europe. In the Far East it has achieved much in developing duty free and airport management. However, we would not do the company a service if we did not place it on a proper footing.

If Members consider the long history of State enterprise in Ireland, the collective record of State-sponsored companies in respect of dividends has been appalling. There was a long period in the 1980s when State and taxpayers' investments yielded negative returns from State enterprise. It makes good sense to place State enterprise on a footing which is not unfair but prudent. The Minister's intent in this section is a recognition of that fact. I return to the point that the capital and assets of the company did not fall out of the sky, they were created on the basis of investments by the taxpayer and good and prudent management and work practices on the part of a company which has served the State well. We would not do the company a great service if we took the action proposed by Deputy Stagg.

I listened carefully to the Minister's contribution. If I understood her comments in respect of the proposal to delete section 14(5), she stated it is true that expenditure on the resource was funded from the company's capital, not the Exchequer.

The Deputy is referring to the two amounts put up as a guarantee.

Yes, but they were never exercised. The Minister also made the point that the original land had some value which was transferred.

I wish to approach this matter from another direction. The Minister is the current legal owner of the assets in question. This time next year, when the assets are transferred to the company, the Minister will be the company's shareholder.

And I will be acting on behalf of the State.

Therefore, the shareholder and the owner will be one and the same. This is merely a paper exercise because there will not be a transfer of assets from one entity to the other. The owner that was will still be the owner.

It is a different relationship. The Minister is the owner of the assets at present.

It is not the same as the assets previously owned by Telecom Éireann are now owned by KPN Telia. In this case the assets will be owned by the same person. We have two strong arguments: first, the assets were fully funded and paid for from the capital expenditure of the company and, second, their "owner" will remain the same following the enactment of the legislation. This is a clear raid by the Department of Finance to obtain £14 million to £15 million. I am aware of leaks indicating that the Estimates contain both figures, the dividend and——

It was not leaked.

I apologise, it was explicitly stated. My fears, and those of Deputy Stagg, are well founded. Not only is this a double whammy and a smash and grab operation, but the amount of money involved has been determined. I am sure the final Estimates are close to publication and the Minister has completed her business with the Minister for Finance on a bilateral basis. What is the figure to be included? If we know that, we will know the extent of the hit to be made on the company.

As already stated, whether coincidental or not, in each instance the amount will be in the region of £14.5 million.

The Minister also went on to state that, in view of the fact that the vesting day and the first year dividend will coincide, she will be able to be flexible in respect of the level of dividend. Are we talking about a set figure of £28 million to £29 million?

Section 14(5) states:

On the vesting day the company shall, in respect of the lands and other property vested in the company under this section, pay to the Minister for Finance such amount as the Minister for Finance, with the consent of the Minister, may determine.

Members should not refer to leaks or shock disclosures because I have indicated the terms of the relevant provision. Yet the Bill allows for the flexibility which was inherent in the discussions I had with the Minister for Finance. My position remains the same in respect of amendments Nos. 24 and 25.

With regard to the provisions in section 14(5), the deliberations between the Minister and the Minister for Finance seem to have taken place in connection with deciding a figure. The full value would be £28 million to £29 million. However, the Minister indicated that, because the vesting day coincides with the first year dividend, she might take a lower dividend. That is the opposite of Deputy Stagg's proposal which advocates the Minister taking a larger dividend and taking nothing on the vesting day. Does the Minister have the aggregate figure?

Like the Deputy I learned to add at school. Therefore, when the two amounts of £14.5 million are added, the final figure is £29 million. I return to the section of the Bill which contains the flexibility that was also inherent in part of the Government decision. With regard to the cash surrender, I was conscious of Aer Rianta's development plans, about which the company's able chairman, Noel Hanlon, and his board of directors are very keen - I agree with Deputy Roche and others who expressed admiration for the ambitious and assertive way Aer Rianta has done its business - and if a difficulty is experienced it can be discussed with the Minister for Finance. I have the power and legal right to do so because it is written in the Bill.

The Minister stated there was no secret and no leak and indicated that the abridged Estimate included two separate figures. That appears to indicate a decision has been made. What are the details of that decision?

The decision has been written as two figures each totalling £14.5 million.

Therefore, the total figure will be £29 million.

Yes. I am conscious of the fact that I should not refer to exact wordings. However, the words contained in the Government decision, which referred to "inherent difficulties", if they arose, are echoed in section 14(5).

The bottom line is that Aer Rianta will be obliged to pay £29 million in the first year.

If difficulties arise, they will be discussed. We could debate this issue for the remainder of the day——

I am satisfied because we know where we stand. Our worst fears have been realised.

We now know that between £29-£30 million will be taken from the company on vesting day in two ways, namely, on the basis of the written value of the assets and a dividend payable by the company to the Minister. How was the dividend calculated? How did they arrive at £14.5 million? I am aware of the old system of taking money from State bodies. The Department of Finance thought of a figure and doubled it. The Minister of a Department would argue with the Minister for Finance and would try to bring it down as low as possible. That is not the case here. There has been a scientific evaluation of the company which arrives at a dividend. How did the Minister arrive at this figure?

This occurred when Deputy Stagg was in office.

We were successful with the dividend.

In 1996 the then Government made an arrangement with Aer Rianta that, for planning purposes, the dividend in 1996, 1997 and 1998 would be in the nature of £14.5 million. It makes sense. Aer Rianta could then plan for its needs.

That does not answer the question. That tells me how the Government took money from this State body previously. How will the Government take money from this State body in the form of dividends in future? Is there a system to calculate what the dividend should be? If it is based on the profits of the company, which I assume it is, the £14.5 million payment means that the dividend should be reduced. Is it reduced because of that?

The Deputy's question asked how the figure of £14.5 million was arrived at, which I answered. Deputy Stagg now says he asked a different question.

I have asked a different question now.

The Deputy wants to know our plans for 1999. That will obviously arise in 1998. I cannot anticipate that. Presumably during the course of this year future dividend policy will be balanced against future developments planned for Aer Rianta. I can only anticipate that is the kind of dialogue that will arise.

What is happening now makes much more sense. In the past, when I was a Department of Finance official, a figure would be plucked out of the air and the Department would go after the State-sponsored body for what it could get. That made no sense. Aer Rianta could not have a capital development programme for its airports without going to the Minister for Transport, as it was, to get him onside. Then it would have to do battle with the Department of Finance. The Minister is creating an entity which, like any other common stockholder entity, has shareholders and a board which will have dialogue on the long-term investment needs of the company. The company will be in a much better position, and this should have happened 20 years ago. With regard to future dividends, I presume that will be discussed by the shareholder - the Minister, in this case, unless a future decision changes the shareholding basis - and the board. The board could be briefed by management on the long-term plans and capital needs of the company. It is the closest we can get to the freedom a company like Aer Rianta would like.

We are blessed with the wisdom of Deputy Roche, and we are very thankful to him. This Bill had a long gestation period, and I was involved with it. Credit should be given.

It would be disingenuous to say that all parties——

I have the floor. I will take no lectures from Deputy Roche about the need to do things properly for the company. That was the intention of the previous Government and this Government also. We need no lectures on that. We are all trying to change the situation to put State companies on a proper footing so that they can operate commercially and compete.

This is an excessive amount of cake, and the Minister should look at this again or I will press my amendment to stop the smash and grab element of this proposal.

The debate has been helpful, and many points of view have emerged. Deputy Stagg's request is that future dividend policy be viewed in the light of this debate.

Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 8.

  • Creed, Michael.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Brady, Martin.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Wright, G.V.
Question, "That section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 13, subsection (2), lines 37 and 38, to delete "the airports referred to in subsection (1)" and substitute "a State airport".

This is a technical amendment which will ensure that the conferring on the company of the Minister's current powers to provide roads, bridges and water supply, is restricted to airports in the State managed by the company. It makes it clear there is no attempt to confer those powers to Aer Rianta airports abroad which are engaged in expansion.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 14, lines 23 to 25, to delete subsection (4).

The provisions of this section allow for the compulsory acquisition of land from anybody. However, land cannot be acquired from a State authority. Subsection (4) is inconsistent with the rest of the section and I see no justification for it. If it is necessary for aviation and air safety reasons to acquire land from any person, it should be possible to acquire land for similar reasons from another State body or authority.

Subsection (4) states that: "The company shall not be entitled to acquire compulsorily any land, easement or other right belonging to the State or a State authority." This is a standard element in compulsory acquisition provisions. The Bill defines a "State authority" as a Minister, the Government or the Office of Public Works. The proposed compulsory acquisition of land owned by another Minister or another State company would set the State in conflict with itself. As such, compulsory acquisition of State lands by the company will not arise nor should it be legislated for. If State land is required for airport development - and this cannot be ruled out - agreement at Government level for such an acquisition would be required and the option of compulsory purchase would not arise. I do not foresee a situation where Minister would be set against Minister. Neither would such a situation be proper. Such matters would be decided by the Government and it is on these grounds and not on ideological grounds that I am making these comments. The business should be carried out properly between Ministers, Government agencies and Departments.

What about local authorities?

They are separate. I am talking about lands belonging to the State or a State authority. Local authority lands would be under the aegis of that authority.

This has led to conflict in Dublin Airport in the context of the airport's growth. Aer Rianta is in conflict with various holdings because of its intention to develop the airport while Fingal County Council and private citizens have different ideas.

I am aware of that situation. One element of that matter is now the subject of a planning appeal and a final decision will be given next week.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
Sections 18 and 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill".

I was wondering why the power to sell water was necessary when it is in the business of landing aircraft and providing facilities. That struck me as unusual.

It also struck me as unusual. Aer Rianta has some tenants at Dublin Airport who use large volumes of water, including Aer Lingus, Team, a Maxol garage and the Forte Posthouse Airport Hotel. The terms of their site leases do not include a supply of water. Therefore, Aer Rianta, which maintains a reservoir and a small waterworks at the airport, supplies the water and charges separately for it. Effectively it passes on the charges of Fingal County Council while adding its own costs.

I wondered if we were in the Oman desert when I read this provision in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.

Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are cognate and made be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 16, subsection (4), line 29, to delete "the Minister for the Environment" and substitute "the Minister for the Environment and Local Government".

This is a technical amendment to give the newfangled title to the Minister to which he is entitled. He has been short changed in the Bill.

The Deputy's concern is appreciated and I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 16, subsection (5), line 36, to delete "the Minister for the Environment" and substitute "the Minister for the Environment and Local Government".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 22.

Amendment No. 30 is in the name of Deputy Stagg. Amendments Nos. 32 and 47 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 17, subsection (3), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(b) the Chief Executive shall ex officio be a director of the company;".

A report was carried out into the working of semi-State bodies in 1996. I do not have the title of the report, but it was carried out by the Department. I am not sure whether the Department was assisted by consultants. The report recommended that the chief executive should, ex officio, be a director of the company. This policy has already been implemented in many companies with the chief executive being appointed a board member. The previous draft of the Bill contained this provision and I am asking that it be restored. Was it an oversight not to include it? I presume the Minister would be supportive of the chief executive being a member of the board.

Regarding State bodies, the chief executive officer of Aer Lingus is not on the board. In the case of Aer Rianta, the legislation did not contain such a provision, but the most recent chief executive officer, Derek Keogh, who resigned on 31 December, was a member of the board. The managing director of Bord na Móna, Pat Hughes, is on the board. The chief executive officers of CIE, Bord Gáis and the ESB are members of the respective boards. The chief executive officers of the Irish Aviation Authority and the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland are not on the boards. The chief executive officers of IMPC, An Post and Telecom Éireann are members of the respective boards. In the case of the IMPC, the Companies Acts, 1963 to 1983, provide for the chief executive officer to be a member of the board. However, none of the other chief executive officers are on the board by statute. There is new legislation in train regarding Bord na Móna.

I thought about this matter quite a bit because on Second Stage I said there was no statutory provision in previous legislation, except in the case of IMPC. Having thought about the matter I think it fair to include such a provision. I could easily oppose such a provision by referring to the absence of statutory provision except in the case of IMPC. I then thought about the work of chief executive officers and what he or she - there are no females as of yet - should do on a board. I concluded that they should be on the board. The board takes the policy decisions in conjunction with the Minister and the Government and it falls to the chief executive officer to carry out the work. It must give rise to an uncertain feeling among chief executive officers that they are outside the loop but have to implement the decisions.

Statutory provision was not made in the case of the other companies I mentioned. The relevant legislation dates back further but many of the Acts would have been amended. One amendment concerned Bord Gáis, when the chief executive was appointed as the Minister's nominee. It appears that the chief executive officers of many of the semi-State companies were hanging in the wind in the context of appointments and at the whim of the Minister. I received different advice from many sources and have decided that a chief executive officer should be on the board so that he or she would be confident that is what the Houses of the Oireachtas wanted. One has a vision of a chief executive officer sitting in the office while decisions are taken at board meetings and getting the short end of the stick when implementing the decisions that have been made.

This was reaffirmed by the example of Derek Keogh and how effectively he carried out his job with Aer Rianta. I am glad he will be engaged by the board in consultancy work on duty free sales. I am not sure yet of the final details but that is another day's work. I accept that the chief executive officer should be on the board. Deputy Wright spoke to me about this matter and referred to Mr. Keogh's performance and this was among a plethora of advice I received.

I wish to examine the text to ensure it is legally correct.

I will withdraw my amendment on foot of what the Minister has said.

I have put down two further amendments on the same issue. I was not sure whether one should be inserted in the section relating to the chief executive or in that dealing with directors. However, I welcome the Minister's comments. It is a failing of any legislation dealing with semi-State companies that the buck stops with the chief executive. In modern companies they are usually employed on contracts and answer for their performances. It is unthinkable and totally lacking in commonsense that they would not on company boards to see through development plans and defend at that level anything that would arise. It is incongruous that workers and worker/directors, who are rightly represented on the board, would be able to have their say and management would not. That should be included in the interest of fair play.

I urge the Minister to introduce legislation for all semi-State companies under our aegis to make this uniformly the case. chief executive officers are extremely well remunerated and in a high wire position of accountability. It often happens that board members are appointed by previous Administrations and it would not be a bad idea to appoint one civil servant to the board because one can call in a principal officer or assistant secretary and be fully briefed on what is happening. I envisage a situation whereby the chief executive, for example, may not get on with the chairman, and if he or she is not a board member then it is not a healthy scene. Non-executive directors will not have the time, experience or knowledge that a chief executive will in terms of the running of a business. In terms of the link with the Department, an appropriate senior civil servant from the sponsoring Department should be appointed and not one from the Department of Finance. Any Minister should not rely on individuals they did not appoint.

The vast majority of appointees receive small remuneration and do the job out of loyalty to the country and public spirit. They do not become directors of State companies for financial gain, although many people are interested in being appointed. It is important that a Minister could call in a civil servant in a totally apolitical manner and find out about the company and what happens at board meetings. I assume the Minister will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.

It may well be that the wording of the amendments put down by Deputies Stagg and Yates is correct but it may need jostling. On Report Stage I will make sure the wording is correct and will give expression to the spirit of the amendments. The chief executive officer will be a member of the board.

I put forward a contra view. There has been a lengthy debate about where power resides in these companies over the years and there have been many controversies throughout the history of the State. I am much taken by the Minister's image of the chief executive of a State sponsored body sitting outside a door sucking on his thumb waiting for a decision or for white or black smoke to go up. They already have extraordinary power within State enterprises as the pressures on executives in private sector enterprises, for example, from shareholders have not been evident in State sponsored bodies. We have had very good and powerful executives on them over the years. There has been very few bad eggs and we have been extraordinarily well served by them. However, I issue a word of caution before this becomes a universally accepted principle. There is a degree of creative tension between the chief executive officer and the board and it is very important that the board should feel able to exercise its independence without undue influence by the chief executive. The board of a State sponsored body is predominantly dependent for its information, statistics and the background that informs its opinions on the chief executive and management of the company. If chief executives were automatically voting members of the board in addition to that, it would tilt the balance in the wrong way.

There is a much more cogent argument to be made for a departmental staff member to be appointed to the board, specifically the person who heads up the section dealing with the State sponsored body in question. I have often felt that was a bad exclusion. Deputy Stagg reminded me of a report on this issue which I read when it was published in 1996. I took a fundamental view that an error was being made. Every word being whispered in the ears of Ministers over the years was that the chief executives should automatically be board members. In the 1960s there was a big debate about whether chief executives should also be chairmen of the companies and this was covered in Dr. FitzGerald's book on State enterprise. The arguments against it are hard to muster but it needs to be thought through. There has not been enough discussion about it for us to come to the conclusion that as a universal principle chief executives should be voting members of the boards. They do not sit outside doors and the Minister knows they attend meetings and participate fully in the discussions and in the formation of material and information that goes to the board. It is wise to put down the contra view.

The beauty of a committee is that it is intimate and non adversarial. There is a chance for people to put forward differing points of view.

Because of the structure of semi-State's and the majority of directors are non-executive, there is a compelling case for the chief executive to be a director of the board. In the corporate sector, the directors of marketing and finance are on the board as executives but that tends not to be the case with semi-State companies. When the board is called to its monthly meeting, the item on the agenda is the chief executive's report on daily operations and future projections, plans, etc. Those on the board are the policy makers but as they are non-executive, it is essential the chief executive is a director and member of the board. I also agree the Department head representing the shareholder should also be on the board. They are two lines of communication which should exist to allow for the smooth running of our semi-State companies.

This would give the chief executive status with executives because there will also be an executive team under the board. If he is able to report from the board the policy adopted by it to be implemented by executives, he will be a formal conduit. There may be times when the board may wish to discuss the chief executive's salary and he could exclude himself from the discussion. A subcommittee of the board would deal with such matters. The chief executive should be a member of the board.

While I see problems with this, I do not mind if the chief executive is on the board. Legislation has allowed chief executives of the harbours to be board members. In the case of conflict with the chief executive, as happened in the not too distance past, would he, as director, have a vote at board meetings? Would that cause problems for the board? If the board dismissed the chief executive, would he remain a member of the board? There could be problems unless this issue is teased out properly.

The same applies to the second point about the civil servant. I am not sure that is the right road to go down. If there is confrontation between the semi-State and the Minister, which we have seen in the not too distance past also, will it cause problems? Will loyalties lie with the board and the company or the Minister? We should perhaps discuss this matter again and look at the harbours legislation and the new structure of the harbour boards, which have 12 members, to see how it was put together and assess the role of the chief executive. Perhaps we should discuss this matter when we have been briefed on it.

On the point about civil servants, in my limited experience I found it invaluable to have somebody from the Department on the board. I know of the pressures on Ministers to appoint persons other than civil servants when it comes to appointments. It would be desirable if that person was not head of the section responsible and should be from another section in the Department. It should be a civil servant with a relatively independent view who will be available to report to the Minister. Other appointees do not report to the Minister except on an ad hoc basis. Ministerial appointees to the board are relatively useless from the Minister’s information channel point of view. The point made about civil servants was valid but it would be better if the civil servant was not head of or in the section responsible for the company to avoid possible conflict.

I came to the same conclusion about the chief executive as did the Minister. I used every opportunity I had to appoint chief executives to boards except in one case in which I did not have the authority to overrule more senior people, but I saw it as desirable and made such a case. I appointed some of those within my remit to the board and I saw it as highly desirable not to have them operate with one hand tied behind their backs.

The issues of conflict of interest have been ironed out within companies whose chief executive is on the board. They have formats and modus operandi established to deal with any possible conflict of interest. We had a situation where there was a row between a chief executive and a chairman of a board. The chief executive was on the board and had a vote but excluded himself from debates on himself, in one particular case. There is a marked scarcity of women chief executives. I believe the number is as bad as among county managers and it is an issue somebody should consider. The Minister accepts the principle of the amendment I tabled and the best modus operandi, would be for me to withdraw my amendment to allow the Minister to insert the most appropriate text.

We will bring forward what the draftsperson decides is best legal text. Perhaps it will be the same.

I thank the Minister who has got it right in her deliberations on these amendments. To suggest that a chief executive working in the private sector would not be on the board is absurd. I was on the board of Bord Iscaigh Mhara for five years. The chief executive and a Department official were on the board and it worked very well. On Deputy Stagg's point, the individual came from a section of the Department which did not deal directly with the fish industry. It was an effective arrangement and there was a great link with the Government of the day. Obviously, there were different chief executives and Governments over the five year period and there was a link with the senior civil servant on the board.

Civil servants are not paid to be on a board.

The payment for board members is not much. On Second Stage I had the opportunity to say the standard of management in Aer Rianta over the past 12 years has been excellent. I reiterate the points made about Derek Keogh and it is good that he will remain part and parcel of the industry. I support the Minister's view on these amendments.

Important points were raised which go beyond the matter before us. I did not suddenly decide the chief executive should be on the board and gave the matter much thought. It is the first time that will be included in legislation for this company. How the board views it will be another matter. We have made the right decision. I respect what Deputy O'Flynn said and also what Deputy Roche said about his experience.

He has experience in the Department of Finance.

He has much excellent experience in many areas. Although I have been seven months only in the Department, I have come to regard it as necessary that a civil servant is on the board. The chairman makes his report and then asks to see the Minister to whom he gives a précis on the situation or perhaps on an outstanding issue. I welcome that direct approach and most of the Ministers I have known have used that approach which works effectively. One does not hear much from ministerial nominees who work in a voluntarily capacity or for a small payment. It is a very small payment for an act of citizenship which everybody on a board undertakes. I pay tribute to the work board members put into the enormous amount of documentation they get. I disagree with Deputy Stagg. I see why he thinks another PO or Assistant Secretary from another division within the Department would represent the Minister or would be on the board. It would benefit from the expertise of the nominated person dealing with that section. He would report directly to the Department and the Minister. I will certainly give that some thought in future nominations when it comes to the point where there are one or two vacancies. I am facing very few vacancies, as posts were very smartly filled before I took office——

It is a longstanding practice.

We did the best we could. We did a good job.

Yes, but I was looking forward to filling these vacancies with all sorts of exciting possibilities.

I thought every time it went to Cabinet there had to be a woman appointed.

There was not in many cases.

There was a Government decision.

We will see the number of women I appointed to that board when we look at the papers for the RPII.

Mervyn Taylor insisted on a quota every time. There was a Government decision to have a quota.

I thought that too but when I went to visit the boards a week after I took office I was faced with rows of men. They were very good men but there very few women. As a result there is one nominee and 20 people write lauding a particular person. Very rarely is a Minister's nominee appointed. The appointment is at the behest of other Government Ministers.

It is at the behest of party leaders. They have a fair say.

That is the situation. I will consider the appointment of the Civil Service nominee. We have discussed the matter at length. I will come forward at Report Stage with the wording in the spirit of the views of the committee.

Not one person in this room, as an elected representative, would dream of insisting that the chief executive officers of county councils or vocational education committees were given votes on the boards of the county councils or the vocational education committees.

They are full members.

There is a big difference between having the power to sit in on a meeting and involving oneself in debate and having full voting rights. I made that point to the Minister. I am surprised at Deputy Lawlor because we had a major problem with one State-sponsored body. The chief executive withheld correspondence from members of the board. This is documented in the records of the previous Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies. The reports produced by the Oireachtas Joint Committee when the sugar company was under discussion show we had difficulties. Members of the board briefed members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee but we were not allowed to meet them as a committee of the Dáil and Seanad. There is serious issue of principle here which must be looked at. It would be ludicrous for a chief executive not to take part in all discussions. Votes are taken at board meetings. That is where the principle must be examined.

As a procedural point arising from the debates and the points made, I would like to give notice of my intention on Report Stage to table an amendment that a civil servant could be appointed. I did not table one on Committee Stage and I have to give notice to do this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 22

Amendments Nos. 31, 46 and 48 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 17, subsection (3), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"(d) three of the directors of the company shall be persons appointed under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, who are willing to accept office;".

This arose out of a debate on Second Stage in which Deputy Stagg said it was not explicitly stated even though it was inherent in the Bill. The Deputy asked for an explicit reference to that. I said as I was winding up I would look at the matter and this is the basis of my amendment.

Amendment No. 46 has been included with amendment No. 48 and the Minister's amendment. Amendment No. 46 is related to worker directors but it concerns a different issue.

I welcome the Minister's decision to be specific. On Second Stage I understood her to be fully supportive of the principle of doing this. The Bill was silent on it.

The Acts were cited in the Bill.

What the Minister has done now is a better format. There is no doubt it is there. I can withdraw my amendment No. 48 on foot of the Minister's amendment No. 31. We have dispensed with the worker directors aspect of it. The only part that remains to be dealt with is the position of worker directors on subsidiaries. The Bill allows for subsidiaries and if it does worker directors are not accommodated on the boards of subsidiaries. I suggest the standard third of directors would be worker directors. That is the standard format under the Worker Directors Act.

Because it is the standard for the main board?

Yes. We should apply that to the subsidiaries. Even if the Minister is not satisfied with that today, maybe she would look at it in the meantime. It is something the workers representatives are concerned about given the Bill empowers the main company to set up subsidiaries in various forms. They rather than the main board would do a great deal of the day to day business so it would be important that there would be worker directors on that. Maybe the Minister will look at that again if she is not prepared to accept it today.

Amendment No. 46 seeks to provide that worker directors be appointed to the subsidiaries. A core business is broken down into subsidiaries. These are offshoots of the main business of that board. In Aer Rianta, their subsidiary, Great Southern Hotels was originally transferred to CERT and then to CIE and now into Aer Rianta. They have worked very well there. What do the hotels have to do with the airports? It is not part of the core business. I will be glad to return to this on Report Stage. I am simply setting out my thinking on it. I have given quite some thought to this. The subsidiaries of Aer Rianta are not the main business of Aer Rianta which is managing airports. The Worker Participation Act provides for the appointment of worker directors on the main board but not on subsidiary boards. I will look at this matter on Report Stage.

On foot of the Minister's indication that she will look at this again I will withdraw the amendment.

I welcome amendment No. 31 in the Minister's name and I support the specific and explicit inclusion of the worker directors. On Deputy Stagg's question about the subsidiary, I have no objection in principle to appointing a worker director to a subsidiary but I have reservations about appointing a worker director to any and every subsidiary. Are, for example, Birmingham Airport and Dusseldorf Airport subsidiaries of Aer Rianta? Let us say Aer Rianta had a minority stake in such an airport which entitled the company to appoint one director. How would that be implemented? It might be better to confine this requirement to wholly owned subsidiaries or to subsidiaries in which Aer Rianta has a majority stake. One could make a much better case for appointing a worker director to the Aer Rianta owned hotels.

There is one on. I would like to return to this matter.

Aer Rianta has one director on the board of, for example, Birmingham Airport. Given the type of joint venture envisaged in the development plan of Aer Rianta the present wording is general and is not entirely wise.

I am grateful to Deputy Yates and to Deputy Stagg. Aer Rianta have a stake in several airports but the numbers on the boards of these airports will be small. One could not mandate a worker director in such situations. With regard to Great Southern Hotels, although there is no statutory requirement, SIPTU was invited to appoint a director and it did. When I met the board of Great Southern Hotels in Killarney before Christmas the staff representative very clearly spoke for the staff and from a workers' point of view. We will look at the matter but, as Deputy Yates has pointed out, in the case of some subsidiaries there would be, literally, no room for a worker director. We will come back to the matter on Report Stage.

I welcome the Minister's amendment. I note that the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Act allows for these appointments in any event. Are the appointments of worker directors made under that legislation and does this amendment merely give a pointer in that direction?

That is the legislation which provides for workers on state boards. While it was implicit in the recitation of the acts to which this Act referred it was not explicitly stated in this section. Strictly speaking, there is no necessity to include it but I saw no reason it should not be included. I approached the question from the other angle. It may be a source of motivation and confidence building for workers.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 17, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) A reference to a director in subsection (3) includes the chairperson.".

This amendment restores a provision which was deleted from the general scheme previously prepared. It is unclear to me why it was dropped. It would seem to be a normal requirement and this is almost a technical amendment. The Bill will short change itself and the chairperson if it does not have that reference.

We pondered this amendment. We did not see whence it came. Provisions relating to the chairperson have been set out in section 27. Is it Deputy Stagg's intention to ensure that the appointment of the chairperson does not result in an increase in the number of board members to ten?

That would be one of the effects of it but the danger was that the chairperson would not be a director. I think my amendment is the standard format.

The draftsman's advice is that the chairperson must be appointed from the board of directors and cannot be an additional appointment.

If the Minister is happy with that I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 45 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 17, subsection (5), line 40, after "subject to" to insert "section 36 and".

Both of these technical Government amendments simply ensure that directors will not continue in office if they become Members of the Dáil, the Seanad or the European Parliament. Section 36 already provides that they will cease to be directors at that point. A loophole has, however, been identified in section 22(5) and in section 28(3) for directors of the company and directors in a subsidiary of the company. Those two subsections would provide that the existing directors would continue in office if this amendment were not made. This amendment will ensure that this will not apply if the said directors of the subsidiaries become elected representatives. This practice would be followed anyway. The Bill as drafted allows this loophole and this amendment closes that loophole.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 22 as amended agreed to.
SECTION 23.

Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 38, 39 and 41 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 18, subsection (1), lines 3 to 5, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) to own and manage the airports vested in it by section 14 and to own, either in whole or in part, or manage, alone or in conjunction with other persons, any other airports, whether within the State or not, whenever it considers it to be advantageous to the development of the company to do so,".

I am seeking, in this amendment to state clearly the core activity of the company so that there is no doubt about it. This is in line with what the Minister said earlier about the requirement in legislation of the authority of the Oireachtas to sell off any part of the company. If the powers, as the Minister said, already exist in regard to sales it makes ownership of the airport a core function and therefore prevents it being sold off without further reference to the Oireachtas. It defines the core activity.

Amendment No. 36 arises from the constructive participation discussion document within Aer Rianta on the change of status of the company. It may sound legalistic but I put it to the Minister that section 23 of the Bill outlines the principal objects of the company. It provides that the company shall: "own, either in whole or in part, or manage, alone or in conjunction with other persons, airports whether within the State or not."

Section 24 outlines the general duties of the company and states "to regulate operations within its airports." There does not appear to be any definition of "operations" and the Bill portrays Aer Rianta as managing the airports while they should have responsibility for their operation. There is a difference between "manage" and "operate" and the omission of responsibility in addition to the disposal of assets could leave the way open for the sale in whole or in part of the three airports. It is proposed to insert the words "or operate" as well as "manage".

There should be a specific mandate under the legislation to promote the maximum level of air traffic into and out of the State. This is dealt with in my amendment No. 39. If one takes the situations in regard to Aeroflot and Developing Freight Continental it should be a statutory duty of Aer Rianta to pursue business as opposed to getting a directive from the Minister. It should be part of its ethos and stated so explicitly in law. As the Minister knows, regional airports are the poor relations of airports.

Regarding my concerns about the Minister's powers, for example where she can give a direction to Aer Rianta, I am trying to spancel that to some extent because it is so open ended. The promotion of regional airports is good. If Aer Rianta does not have regard for the role of regional airports in terms of the feeder service concept, for example, from, say, Sligo into Dublin, and if it is left to the airlines there will be a missed opportunity. "Promotion" is not a strong term. It gives a nod in their direction Aer Rianta cannot only develop Cork, Shannon and Dublin and to hell with the rest. It must have some regard for regional airports.

My amendment No. 36 arises from the constructive participation document and I ask the Minister to deal with the difference between "management" and "operation" - Deputy Stagg made the same point - and specifically to have a mandate to promote the maximum level of business traffic into the country of business in lieu of airlines. In other words, it should not be up to an airline to promote this. As we have seen with Aeroflot when a foreign airline is involved, such as is the case with Shannon, it can pull out at a moment's notice. It would be part of their mandatory type mission statement and regional airports could not be ignored.

My amendment No. 38 refers to the objects of the company providing facilities, services, accommodation and lands at the airport owned or managed by the company for aircraft, passengers, cargo and mail as it considers necessary. It focuses on the airport as an island of operations. I can speak from my experience of Dublin airport but it may also be the case for other airports that the issue in the development of an airline is increasingly becoming one of passenger comfort and the effective, economic and human efficiency of the other ancillary services, developments and even stand alone towns that are in the vicinity. It would be a help in focusing the mind if access to transport, in particular, public transport, such as I am recommending, were included as one of those objectives.

I have no difficulty with Deputy Stagg's amendment No. 35. I recall at the meeting the Minister and I attended on the electricity directive the ESB took very much as part of its remit the efficient use of its resources and optimum operation rather than the maximum operation. I make that point with my long experience of dealing with residents in the airport areas who have a type of love-hate relationship with it. While there is the undeniable and welcome economic benefit there also the straw that broke the camel's back and the need to take note of the overall economic benefits which both relate to social environmental costs and the general well-being and sustainability of the operation. The word "optimum" would be of more long-term interest than simply "maximum" although I understand from where Deputy Yates is coming in pursuing business. That is allowed but note should be taken of the need for sustainability in that sector. The promotion of regional airports is a mixed blessing for residents who may have a more particular interest in the operation. If my amendment were more closely pursued in terms of public transport the promotion of regional airports could be taken in that context. It might provide sufficient services so one could consider the best use of resources, employment and social service which may or may not require air travel in that case.

The three amendments in the name of Deputy Yates, one in the name of Deputy Stagg and one in the name of Deputy Sargent, while not the same concern the ownership and operation of airports. Section 23 is an enabling section, a key one in the Bill. The intention is to give Aer Rianta as broad a charter as possible and not tie it in regard to its core business. As I said, it is simply to normalise Aer Rianta's position as a commercial semi-State business. The key element of Deputy Stagg's amendment is that a principal objective would be that the existing airports would be wholly owned and managed by Aer Rianta. While this is what will happen when the three airports are vested, that interpretation of their business is probably too narrow. The provision should be general and enabling. I do not wish to bind the company. Members want to produce good legislation. I have never seen a Member attempt to include a provision which was not what they considered to be for the best objectives. I wish to make the company broad and flexible.

Deputy Yates seeks to insert the word "operate". The Bill provides that the company's objectives include "to own or manage an airport". Section 23(1)(b) states that the objects include "to take all proper measures for the safety, security, management, control, regulation, operation, marketing and development of its airports". The word "operation" is included in the section and is sufficient to permit the company to operate an airport.

Deputy Sargent seeks to include the phrase "access to transport". It is true that one must get to and from an airport but under section 23(1)(c) the object of the company is "to provide such facilities, services, accommodation. . . . .as it considers necessary". That is not a problem at Shannon and Cork Airports which are still somewhat rural but access to Dublin Airport is an issue. However, that is covered by this provision. It is not the business of Aer Rianta to provide access, although it is involved in a joint study with CIE - I have only received the interim report - of the necessity for a rail link to Dublin Airport and its cost. Including a provision regarding access would not serve any purpose. Aer Rianta is aware that if it wishes to conduct its business it must get people to the airport. Increasing congestion is a problem, although I have not yet received the final report on the study. Deputy Sargent also agreed with the two earlier provisions.

The content of the section is ideal. When I had a meeting with the unions they suggested that the word "operate" be included. However, the word "operation" in subsection (1)(b) is sufficient. There is no need to enlarge on the provisions of this section. They are already general and enabling.

The regional airports are privately owned while Dublin, Shannon and Cork Airports are owned by the State. The regional airports were established by companies. Some of them, such as Knock Airport, received State aid when they were being established and all are in receipt of ongoing State aid. The Deputy referred to a feeder service. I am holding discussions with the management of the airports in Donegal, Galway and Sligo about the need to operate a feeder service for the tourist and business trade. I have met the boards of all regional airports except Waterford.

This year European funding of the airports ceased but the Department was able to provide £2 million in its Estimate and £3 million in the budget for infrastructural developments at these airports. That will make a real difference. The airports also receive ongoing State aid for promotion and marketing, a policy started by the last Government and continued by this Government. Their promotion literature is effective in extolling the virtues of each airport. The airports also receive a subsidy. Each passenger who takes a flight to or from a regional airport is subsidised by an amount of about £10. The airports would not be able to manage without such subsidies. At present, the Department is examining the tenders for regional airports which fall due.

These airports cannot be included in this legislation because they are privately owned and outside the remit of Aer Rianta. However, I accept the Deputy's point that Aer Rianta should promote the services to regional airports and make people aware that they exist. I will convey the comments of committee members about the need to promote the existence and services of regional airports to the chairman and board of Aer Rianta.

My amendment seeks to clarify the core activities of Aer Rianta. It does not seek to narrow the definition but to broaden and strengthen it. It is an addition to what is provided in the Bill, that is, the core activity, even when there are subsidiaries and even if some of the subsidiaries were to take over some or all of the core activities and divide them among them, as happened in Bord na Móna. I am not suggesting it might not be desirable at some time in the future to sell part or all of Aer Rianta and its holdings. However, if the amendment is included in the core activities neither the Minister nor the company can do so without reference to the Oireachtas.

Does the Deputy mean if the company attempts to divest?

Yes. Once it is described as a core activity, it would be required to come to the Oireachtas to divest.

Does the Deputy mean if the company wishes to form other subsidiaries?

If the company formed a subsidiary and allocated some of the core activity to it, the subsidiary could not be sold with the core activity.

Is the Deputy saying that if Aer Rianta wished to establish a new subsidiary to develop a certain area the company would have to bring it to the Oireachtas?

No, and the amendment would not require the subsequent sale of that subsidiary to be brought before the Oireachtas. I am referring to the core activities which are described in this section. If any of the core activities are being sold, that proposal should be brought before the Oireachtas. The Minister said earlier that the sale of any part of the company's core activities should come before the Oireachtas. This amendment copperfastens the Minister's opinion and strengthens and broadens the description of core activities. It does not inhibit the company. It can do everything it did previously, but the amendment clarifies the point that it cannot be sold without reference to the Oireachtas. The Minister supports that point of view and the amendment copperfastens it.

I see it more from the angle of restriction.

I appreciate the Minister recognises that the airport must have facilities to enable people to travel to and from it. However, the airport in looking after its monetary interest will be inclined to opt for the transport system which gives the best return. This effectively means the car because car parks allow the airport to profit from people travelling to and from it. I ask the Government to recognise the fact that its brief is beyond the airport's central objective.

It must recognise the conflict that exists between the pursuit of the objective of car parks and the general effect on the hinterland of the airport and the wider transport network. The Government has a responsibility to push the wider interests of the community. This would not eclipse the airport's interests but it would take into account that to concentrate on the construction of car parks is not the best option. I understand the airport management's point of view that it offers a good return on its investment. However, it may have a negative impact on the wider community to which the Minister has a responsibility.

With respect to Deputy Sargent, it would be unduly prescriptive to tell people that they cannot take their cars and that they must travel by public transport. That would be admirable if the access line was built.

I did not suggest that.

The Deputy's amendment refers to public transport. If accepted it would be too prescriptive. However, the Government, Aer Rianta and CIE are considering the best option in terms of providing a public service rail link to the airport. Most European cities have one and the Deputy's proposal will become a reality in Dublin. The cost of approximately £100 million is horrendous. That figure is not exact but I think that is what the report will suggest. There are many ways to finance projects. Nevertheless, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Will the Minister consider the matter between now and Report Stage? I do not intend to ask her to consider every aspect.

There will be a giant Report Stage debate.

Will the Minister re-examine the description of the principal objectives of the company? Will she consider taking on board our suggestions? As she said, our intentions are good and in the interest of the company and those who use it.

That applies to everybody.

Regarding Deputy Sargent's point, I agree with the Minister about the amendment being prescriptive. However, there is enough latitude under section 23(3) to do many of the things Deputy Sargent wants. The company would be empowered to pursue a rail link if it wished.

It is in its interest anyway.

It is one of the biggest supporters of a rail link. The management has been to the forefront of encouraging a rail link.

The management has been badgering me about it. It wants to get the proposal moving. I will reconsider the matter, although I do not promise anything. We took the view that the amendment was prescriptive and confining for the company. The Deputy's comments today are his interpretation.

Perhaps another form of words could meet my suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 18, subsection (1)(a), lines 3 and 4, to delete "in conjunction with other persons" and substitute "jointly with another person".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Top
Share