(Mayo): Yes. As the Minister knows, the new desks have not been opened because of the dispute but I am talking about the existing set up where there are 16 computer terminals. Why should passengers be left queuing for so long? Why has a speedier, more efficient system not been put in place? What is the point in having 16 check-in desks if you do not provide 16 staff to man or staff them? It is bad enough to have to queue for a long period but because of the way the queues are organised or disorganised, there is a constant criss-cross flow of traffic, with passengers with trolleys laden with luggage trying to get from one location to another.
An aspect of Dublin Airport which is of particular concern is the marked absence of adequate exits in the event of a fire or bomb scare and at a time when the most modest of community halls with their weekly bingo sessions are rightly being asked to comply with stringent fire regulation. One is struck by the fact that the only visible exit at Dublin Airport with thousands of people crowded in at any time and catering for, as has already been said, 14 million passengers per annum, apart from those waiting to greet or see off passengers, is one set of arrival doors. I accept that Dublin Airport is the victim of a failure of foresight and forward planning and is now playing the difficult game of catch-up. However, management and the airlines will have to get their act together. Customers and consumers – the travelling public – are entitled to the same level and quality of service they would get in any other capital city air terminal.
I listened to the Minister on RTE's "Five Seven Live" two weeks ago when she faced questions on the chaos at Dublin Airport. There is much talk of the designation of the airport as co-ordinated. However, no definite improvement is visible or guaranteed, nor is a time scale forthcoming. Last week's Sunday Tribune reported that the chairman of the Dublin Airport scheduling committee wrote to the Minister stating that a move to full co-ordinated status was unnecessary and would lead to a reduction in traffic using the airport. In her reply to Second Stage the Minister might comment on the content of the chairman's letter and whether he sought a meeting with her and/or her Department to discuss the matter.
This is a national political issue given that such a large segment of the population passes through Dublin Airport every year. Millions of Irish people travel through Dublin Airport every year as a result of the Celtic tiger, deregulation, competition and the welcome resultant cheap air fares. These passengers see at first hand how chaotic the airport is compared to other international airports and they will not accept such chaos any longer. Action and not talk is what is required.
I will restate Fine Gael's policy on the privatisation of Aer Rianta. The two consultants' reports on the future of Aer Rianta made their conclusions on the narrow basis of the best interests of the company's balance sheet. Fine Gael believes that our three international State-owned airports at Dublin, Shannon and Cork are as vital a part of our national infrastructure as the ports of Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, Cork or Rosslare, or the N5 or N11, yet there are no proposals to sell off our ports or roads. Why should we contemplate selling off such a vital component of our transport infrastructure? The key question has to be whether it is in the national interest or in the interest of consumers to sell off such an asset.
In Britain and across Europe privatisation of state enterprises has worked well but the experience has been mixed in Ireland. The Eircom debacle speaks for itself, an issue to which I will return during the forthcoming Question Time. However, privatisation became badly unstuck in Britain when it extended to public utilities such as water and rail track. Dublin Airport is not only a public utility; it also has an undisputed monopoly. Aer Rianta's latest annual accounts indicated that the airport made a profit of £48 million making it one of the most profitable airports in the world, despite all the chaos. This figure was achieved before most of the Ryanair discounts were abolished on 1 January, thereby increasing landing charges from £4 to £8 per passenger. Dublin Airport services at least one third of the population every year. A public monopoly is bad enough but a private monopoly in such a vital sector is totally unacceptable.
Cork and Shannon Airports have been rightly referred to as very important entities in their own right and there is no logical argument for selling them jointly or separately. Both are three hours' drive from Dublin and service very different and viable catchment areas. Taking everything into consideration I am firmly of the belief that our three Aer Rianta airports should be retained as a single public entity. A £48 million profit is clear evidence that Dublin Airport is literally a licence to print money. Why should that profit and resource and all that public money be handed over to a private individual or consortium? Surely the facility and its great potential should be retained, properly developed and managed for the benefit of the tax paying public.
The public policy context has been forgotten in the debate on the best future and strategic options and direction for Aer Rianta. There are two key policy issues. First, national air access for an island economy such as ours and, second, regional policy. The success and continued growth of tourism depends on competition and high quality, frequent, air services. If the Government owns the airport it can decide to retain a policy of low landing charges and aggressively market new routes to promote and sustain overall national economic benefits for tourism and commerce. However, this is not possible where such a vital asset is handed over and owned by private shareholders.
Deputy Killeen spoke about the possibility of Dublin Airport assisting the enterprises, welfare and development of Cork and Shannon Airports. I hold a similar view. I wish to see the profits from Dublin Airport being used to benefit Cork and Shannon. Shannon Airport has been the linchpin on which the regional development of the south west has been built. Such regional considerations would not figure in the thinking of private shareholders if the airport was handed over to a private individual.
Those who argue for the IPO to meet the capital needs of Aer Rianta continue to advance the argument that the State cannot invest in our airports. No one has shown me where the EU stipulates that a state cannot invest in airport development. We have a conventional public capital programme which invests in different forms of infrastructure without difficulty or stricture. I am concerned that Cork and Shannon Airports would be left on the hind tit as regards investment by a restructured Aer Rianta in a post-privatisation environment.
One must question one of the basic assumptions in the consultants' report which states "It is our understanding that direct Exchequer financial support to Aer Rianta is not a funding option". I do not believe it is contrary to EU or other rules to make such state investment in airports. The availability of State capital for the core development needs of Shannon, Cork and Dublin is not a problem for the Exchequer in the prevailing, positive economic climate. However, Fine Gael believes the arguments of the national interest in respect of Aer Rianta's role in Dublin, Shannon and Cork do not apply to Aer Rianta International. We have a definite view on the retention and State-ownership of Aer Rianta nationally but we have no objection to Aer Rianta International being wholly or partly privatised and the proceeds being used to fund domestic core business.
The emphasis in the Bill is on the State-owned airports but it does not address the crucial issue of regional airports in the regional and national economic contexts. Regional airports have a dimension in terms of the regional and national economies. Despite much initial scepticism about the future or success of regional airports they have defied the critics. They work on very tight budgets and many have shown commendable resourcefulness. I am particularly concerned about the welfare and future of Knock airport. The airport was built to international standards, has a 7,000 ft. runway and an excellent terminal building. It could not be better located on the intersection of two national primary routes – the N5 and N17.
Knock Airport is 20 years old. The view was that it would provide the economic fulcrum for the development of the region but, unfortunately, it has failed to realise its potential. From the point of view of the development of tourism, the airport is not getting the tourists in. From the point of view of providing a cheap service for the thousands of emigrants from the west there is something wrong when it costs £300 to fly from Knock Airport to Britain and one can fly to San Francisco for £25 less. I do not want to be critical of the management because they are doing their best. However, there is a limit to what this management can achieve. There is an urgent need for an injection of further management and management skills into the airport. I commend the management for taking the airport through its embryonic and developing stages to its current stage of development. However, an airport of this size and potential with six or seven flights a week cannot survive in a modern competitive environment.
That is why I urge the Minister, when there is currently huge expectation in relation to the airport which is not being met, where a substantial amount of taxpayers' money has been invested in this resource, where ongoing marketing grants are being given to the airport, to look objectively at Knock Airport to see what can be done to improve the quality of service. The Minister has given approval to the public service dimension, but something will have to be done as there is huge public concern. Monsignor Horan's dream was that this would be the people's airport. It is not, because it is not delivering a quality service.
Deputy Yates indicated that he would bring forward various amendments on Committee Stage. I will mention two because I will bring them forward now in my own name.
The first relates to air safety standards. The Irish Airline Pilots Association has on more than one occasion expressed concern about the smoking regulations on airliners. Currently, under Statutory Instrument 62 of 1986, carriers must take all reasonable steps to prohibit smoking. However, smoking is not an offence. It should be. The strongest possible penalties, financial or custodial, should be handed down. Imperilling the safety of 300 people on an airbus or 50 on a commuter plane is much too serious an issue. We have been given graphic details of what has happened on occasion. People have gone into the toilet, removed the anti-smoking device, thrown the cigarette into waste paper, and at times cabin crews have had to fight fires in mid air. The consequences of this are quite obvious. We will be tabling an amendment to make it an offence to smoke when signs are illuminated. In addition we are proposing a financial and/or prison penalty.
The other amendment relates to the question of disruptive behaviour, which has arisen on many occasions and is unfortunately becoming increasingly frequent, with obvious consequences for passengers and also from the point of view of the huge costs incurred by having to divert because somebody has taken too much drink or just decides to be disruptive on a plane. Staff have been assaulted, even sexually assaulted, on planes. We have to get tough in relation to these two aspects. I will bring forward Committee Stage amendments in this respect.
