Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Mar 2006

Proposed Sale of Aer Lingus: Motion.

No. 5 is a motion re the proposed sale of Aer Lingus. Deputy Shortall has tabled a motion for consideration by the committee which has discussed it in private session. We propose to seek submissions from interested members of the public. However, to speed up the programme, it has been suggested we hear several submissions on the morning of 6 April as the initial investigation and then deal with those who make further submissions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move:

That the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport agree to carry out an examination of all aspects of the proposed sale of Aer Lingus and to hear the views of interested parties on the best way forward in respect of the national economy, the travelling public, the company, the taxpayer and the workforce.

I have tabled this motion because of my extreme concern at the Government-driven, headlong rush to privatise Aer Lingus. It seems that it is likely to take place without any serious analysis of the consequences for the public interest. The motion mentions "the national economy, the travelling public, the company, the taxpayer and the workforce". There has been virtually no public debate on the matter, either in the House or the media, with the exception of last night's "Prime Time" programme which presented a balanced picture of the issues involved. It would be extraordinary if this move went ahead without being debated by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport.

From our dealings with Aer Lingus in recent years, I know — I believe we all accept this — that there is a need for significant investment in its fleet, particularly the long-haul fleet. We have not, however, examined the company's options in that regard at any stage. Clearly it is in a position to borrow to fund that expansion. There is no difficulty, particularly in light of its rating. It has the option of long-term leasing, which is common practice in most airlines. There is also the option of State investment. I wish to clarify again that, despite the Minister for Transport's comments at Question Time in the Dáil last week to the effect that the EU would not allow the Government to invest in Aer Lingus, there is nothing to preclude the State, operating as a rational investor, from investing in the company as a going concern. If Aer Lingus represents a good investment for the private sector, then it is also a good investment for the public sector. I am glad that, following the Minister's misrepresentation of the situation, this point was clarified yesterday in reply to a further parliamentary question I tabled.

Aer Lingus is of enormous importance to this country.

It would be helpful to me and others if Deputy Shortall could elaborate somewhat on that clarification. Did the Minister accept that the Government is entitled to invest?

Yes, it may invest in the company as a profitable, going concern.

I thank Deputy Shortall.

The situation as regards state aid is that the EU does not allow a state to bail out a public company that is in financial difficulties. It can, however, invest in such a company as a profitable, going concern on the same basis on which a rational investor might provide investment in a market situation. My concern is that Aer Lingus, as the national airline, provides services that are of enormous strategic interest to this country. It is a very successful and profitable company and it is owned by all of us, as taxpayers. We all have a very live stake in the company, which is estimated to be worth approximately €1 billion. However, it seems that the Government is intent on jeopardising all of that by selling off the majority shareholding to private interests and thereby negating the value of the taxpayer's equity in the company and, critically for this island, losing control of the services that Aer Lingus currently provides, especially in respect of its ownership of the Heathrow slots.

It is crucial that the Joint Committee on Transport should examine the experience in respect of the privatisation of other public companies in recent years, particularly that relating to Eircom. Everybody thought that the privatisation of Eircom was a great idea and that it would provide an opportunity for people, as small investors, to own the single major telecommunications company that services this country. It turned out to be an absolute disaster. We were told that all of the strategic interests would be safeguarded, that we would own it, be part of it and contribute to its success and that it had a very bright future. When the change of ownership process relating to Eircom commenced in the mid-1990s, it was a successful and profitable company that had no debts. When that process concluded, the company was left with enormous debts approaching €3 billion, there were major problems with the pension fund——

The Deputy should confine her comments to Aer Lingus.

All right, but we must draw lessons from recent experience as regards the privatisation of publicly-owned companies.

Eircom was a glaring example and the alarm bells should start ringing when we recall what we were told about the company before privatisation and what emerged when that process concluded. In respect of the proposed sale of Aer Lingus, we are not talking about what might happen next year or the year after because we will be told, as part of this con job, that the Government will hold on to a golden share of 25% and that all of the strategic interests to which I refer can be protected. The fact is that the Government's adviser, Goldman Sachs, has made clear that the notion of a golden share is a nonsense. At EU level, that whole idea of a blocking share has been rejected. Even at the initial public offering, IPO, stage, if the Government decides to retain 25%, there is no guarantee that this holding can be protected in any subsequent share offer. Again, we should consider the example of Eircom in this regard.

Those lessons must be learned. If the Government proceeds with the privatisation of Aer Lingus, we need to know where we will find ourselves in ten years' time, particularly as we are so heavily dependent on good transport links in and out of this country. If these are not available in seven or eight years, there will be enormous implications for tourism and trade and in respect of ease of movement in and out of Ireland to the UK and countries further afield. There is no guarantee that the current services we enjoy, in terms of the short-haul opportunities with those Heathrow slots and the connecting flights to other parts of Europe and places further afield, will be safeguarded.

Irrespective of what happens in the initial sale, there is nothing to stop any other airline, for example, or other private interests from taking over the company when the sole objective — the bottom line — will be profit. They will not be concerned about Irish strategic interests, tourism or maintaining the Heathrow slots. They will be seeking to get in and out of that company as quickly as possible and making as much profit as they can in the process. The experience with Eircom shows that. Once a strategic company, or indeed any public enterprise, is opened up to private investors, they strip it and seek to achieve the greatest return they can in the shortest possible time, without any regard for the wider interests of the country.

If we consider the experience with Eircom, there is an enormous danger that matters involving the national airline could go the same way. The experience and advice from Europe is that it is not possible to hold on to any controlling share except in the short term. If this committee takes its responsibilities seriously, it must carry out a proper analysis of the likely outcome of the proposed sale of the company.

I must apologise to visitors who attended at 2.30 p.m. on the understanding that we would be having this debate at the start of the meeting. Unfortunately, the Chairman and other members had an extended debate on this matter in private session, which is unfortunate.

The Deputy should withdraw that remark. Members have the right to discuss any item they wish in private session and a request was made in that regard. The Deputy was totally wrong to make that accusation and she should withdraw it.

If something is listed on the agenda as an item for public discussion and if members of the public are informed that this is the case, it is totally wrong for the committee to hold discussions in private and leave people waiting outside for an hour.

We might have dealt with the matter in public session and some member could have proposed a totally negative motion, which, if carried, would have meant that there would have been no debate on the subject. The committee came up with what it sees as a sensible mechanism to deal with the situation. I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell to be followed by Senator Norris.

May I finish my contribution? As the proposer of the motion, the Chairman should allow me to conclude.

I thought the Deputy, when she began criticising members of the committee, had concluded.

No, I have not done so. Following on from the discussions held in private, agreement has been reached that we advertise for expressions of interest in respect of this matter and seek submissions from concerned interests on either side of the debate. I understand that the advertisement will appear in the national press next week. We also decided that on the morning of the 6 April——

We will take the first three groups that are available to come before the committee——

The first three groups, as selected by the Chairman, were IMPACT, SIPTU and Aer Lingus.

It was selected by agreement of the committee. Deputy Shortall suggested that the unions might not be the first group to come before the committee, but I felt that as the unions had the most members involved, they should get the first opportunity to make their submission.

Indeed, the Deputy suggested that she never asked for the unions to attend.

I did not ask——

The Deputy did say that, but it was in private session so we will go no further on this.

We will not get anything done with all this bickering. I am sure our friends in the Visitors Gallery are glad we are not running Aer Lingus.

Ganging up on me displays what is going on at this meeting.

The Deputy tried to suggest that committee members had colluded in preventing certain groups from attending. I will not have a closed shop in this forum. I want to see notices in newspapers stating that anyone who wants to make a submission will be entitled to do that. This is a forum where people can express their views without interference.

We agreed that we will have representatives of Aer Lingus management, SIPTU and IMPACT at our first session on 6 April. I proposed that we have representatives of the proponents of this proposal, but unfortunately that was overruled.

I pointed out——

May I finish?

On a point of clarification, we are advertising in the press in order that anyone can make a submission, rather than choosing one group over another. This must be open and transparent.

The Minister for Transport is the proponent of this proposal. He should attend a meeting of this committee, make the case for his proposal and be answerable to us. I maintain that position very strongly and I object to attempts to use the management of Aer Lingus as some kind of fall guy. The decision has been taken that we will proceed in this way and I must accept that, given that it is the view of the majority. However, I have genuine concerns about what the Government proposes to do because I believe it is a mistake that will cause serious repercussions for the economy, tourism, trade and the future of our national carrier.

I formally second Ms Shortall's motion.

My recollection was that the committee decided unanimously how to proceed and not by majority. The record should reflect that. There are a number of other inaccuracies which I could point out.

I hope it is recorded that when the vote was taken by this committee, I stated that this was a ready-up.

There was no vote.

Deputy Power should have gone into public session if he wanted people to know what was going on.

I do not misrepresent what goes on in meetings.

The motion before the committee is whether interested parties should appear before the committee. I do not propose, nor was I prepared to discuss comprehensively, whether Aer Lingus should be sold. It is no secret that we in Fine Gael believe that the best chance of a future for Aer Lingus is in private ownership. It is not guaranteed in private ownership because the aviation industry is increasingly volatile, but it is the best chance of survival.

I agree with many of the points made, such as guaranteeing the slots. We cannot guarantee them indefinitely. As soon as an open skies policy becomes a reality, the large American airlines will be interested in flying into Heathrow and they will pay any money for a slot. We must be honest and realise that we might lose the slots.

Perhaps Deputy Olivia Mitchell should be concerned about that.

I am concerned about it.

Nobody interfered with Deputy Shortall when she was making her contribution. Deputy Olivia Mitchell should be allowed to proceed.

I agree that the privatisation of Eircom was a fiasco, but it is not a valid comparison with Aer Lingus. Eircom was a natural monopoly just like Iarnród Éireann, with a fixed infrastructure to which it only had access. Eircom should never have been disposed of in the manner that occurred without laying down clear conditions about how people could gain access to that infrastructure. However, Aer Lingus is in competition with other private airlines as well as state-owned airlines in other parts of the world.

It is doing well.

Absolutely. I do not deny that. This decision was made before I became a member of this committee. I was astounded to find it had never been discussed by the committee. I agree that we should have hearings on the issue. My concern is that protracted hearings will give the Government an excuse to procrastinate further. In earlier discussions, members said that the decision was made and that we know how everything will go, but we do not know. The Taoiseach has said that he does not want to do it. He certainly will not want to do it before a general election.

Aer Lingus management stated that it is in a tight timeframe and that if the decision is not made before the summer, we may have to wait until winter. We need clarity on the future of Aer Lingus. Will it be sold, will it have access to funds and will it have the flexibility that private ownership might give it? If this occurs, the company should be allowed plan for it. If the decision is made to sell, it must be sold quickly. The last time the Government discussed the sale of Aer Lingus, it procrastinated. The dotcom bubble burst, there was a foot and mouth outbreak and then the attacks on 11 September 2001 occurred. We then lost the management of Aer Lingus and the sale was postponed again. We are now going down that road again because of an upcoming general election. The delay is a ruse to keep everyone on board. Eventually, we will become so bored with the topic that it will go away.

Aer Lingus deserves some clarity about the future. If there is another avian flu outbreak, nobody will be flying anywhere and the debate about selling Aer Lingus will be redundant because there will be nothing left to sell. Every airline faces that possibility and the company needs to have an advantage if it is to position itself to survive, which is not guaranteed in private ownership either.

Protracted committee hearings are not in anyone's interests. We should cancel other committee business and have the hearings as quickly as possible. We should not sacrifice the entire airline just to allow everyone from every corner of Ireland to attend a committee meeting. I am in favour of the motion and I support Deputy Shortall's suggestion in having the interested parties before the committee, but we must have them in now.

That is the reason we have decided to hold a special meeting in two weeks to begin to deal with this matter.

This could go on for months.

I regret that this is a rather rancorous meeting, but it is important that we discuss the matter as it is a major political decision. The decision may not have been taken, but the Taoiseach has certainly given the impression that it has been taken in principle. He was unambiguous when interviewed, stating that Aer Lingus would be privatised. That is his view and he seems to be in the driving seat of the country for the time being. However, one cannot always rely on what one is told. That is why I was interested in the information Deputy Shortall extracted in the Dáil yesterday. I had not been aware of that information but I was aware that Proinsias De Rossa, MEP asked similar questions and received a letter from the Commissioner responsible stating that there is no problem whatever with the Government investing in Aer Lingus and that in those circumstances it is perfectly legitimate to do so.

The Government has already invested in quite a few foreign airlines. The question is whether they are profitable. Aer Lingus is now profitable as a result of the co-operative attitude of the unions. An extraordinary situation developed in which the number of company employees dropped from more than 6,000 to 3,500, which is almost half. That was an extraordinary bite into the workforce, which should be acknowledged.

Deputy Shortall's comparison with Eircom is fully justified. It is not a perfect analogy but it is clear that it is an appropriate one. What happened in that case is that, following much fanfare, the fat cats bought into what was properly a State asset and then stripped it. There has been less investment in Eircom than in parallel European companies and it provides a thoroughly lousy service for the consumer.

That is the sort of issue about which we should worry if Aer Lingus is to be sold. If I may do a bit of advertising, an excellent booklet called A New Flight Path for Aer Lingus: the Alternative to Selling our National Airline, published by SIPTU, cites a perfect analogy, namely, the New Zealand Government’s buyout of Air New Zealand in 1988. The New Zealand Government sold the airline to a consortium for NZ$660 million but by 2000 it had gone bust and it had to spend NZ$675 million to buy it back and NZ$1.3 billion on other costs. The New Zealand Government’s capacity to squander money was flattered by this. It is an example we should consider very carefully before we take the road of privatising Aer Lingus.

I am against privatisation. Fine Gael might have committed itself to privatisation but its acknowledged expert on transport affairs, the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, is not in favour of it. He wrote on this point in a 2003 article in The Irish Times, stating: “An island like Ireland, dependent to an almost unique degree on air services for access to and from the rest of the world, has a need for a national airline with a wide remit.” That is the opinion of a former Taoiseach and former leader of Fine Gael. Therefore, within the intellectual resources of Fine Gael past and present, such as they are, there is some degree of dispute on this matter. I would listen carefully to Dr. FitzGerald.

The Senator is not related to Deputy McDowell, by any chance?

We are all related to the wonderful men who started it all in Africa. That is as far as I can go.

We have had the announcement of the Transport 21 initiative, with its budget of perhaps €34 billion. To be cavalier, it would be easily possible to siphon off €200 million to invest in Aer Lingus — there should be no difficulty with that. There are other ways of progressing. Aeroplanes could be rented rather than purchased, which might be prudent.

There is no guarantee that we will achieve the best price if we decide to sell the airline now. This may not be the best time to sell, given the fact of high oil prices and that it is not a boom time. The company is profitable. Why are we selling a profitable company in circumstances which are economically questionable and also questionable in terms of the national interest?

It is easier to sell a profitable rather than a loss-making company.

Deputy Mitchell, please allow the Senator to continue.

He asked a question.

It was what is known as a rhetorical question. I welcome that this important debate will take place. It is important that we hear from the unions as well as management. I find it unnerving that I am agreeing with Deputy Shortall all the time — something must be wrong. However, I agree with her in this regard. It is important that we flush out the proposers of this matter. I am not interested in hearing an academic from anywhere. I do not know who was in mind when it was suggested that we produce an academic to teach us how to suck eggs.

As we already have one, we are fine.

Why not invite the Minister? He will propose the scheme. If we want to hear from the proponent, surely it is rational to invite the Minister to the committee. I propose that we invite the Minister to tell us why it is such a glorious idea to sell off the national airline, perhaps to British Airways. We would all be happy then, because Mr. Willie Walsh would be in charge.

We would have to send for him again.

Can I take it that my proposal to invite the Minister will be considered?

A Deputy

I second that.

I thank the Deputy.

Once the public notice is put in the arena, it will be up to the Minister or the Department to make a submission.

The Minister has no time to read the newspapers as he is far too busy. I suggest that we invite him. The Chairman should entertain that proposal.

I call Deputy Healy.

Could I have an answer on my proposal?

I have no problem with it. The Senator made the proposal and it has been seconded. There has been no amendment.

Thank you; it has been accepted.

I did not say when.

As members are aware, I am fundamentally and ideologically opposed to privatisation and I am opposed to the privatisation of Aer Lingus. We need only look around us to see examples of what has happened with regard to various examples of privatisation in this country and overseas. Senator Norris referred to the situation at New Zealand Airlines. Similar Irish cases have arisen with regard to Eircom, Greencore and the shipping industry, and we know what happened in each of those cases. Effectively, there has been a rip-off of the ordinary taxpayer to the advantage of wealthy people who have made a fortune from ripping off industry. With regard to the case of Greencore, there is no longer an Irish sugar industry — it is gone. With regard to the shipping industry, we have witnessed the debacle in recent months of the disgraceful attempt to employ foreign workers on desperate wages and conditions and displace Irish workers.

The course of privatisation here has been scandalous. We do not want to take the same road with the sale of Aer Lingus. If we start on that road, we will end up in a situation similar to that pertaining to Greencore, Eircom and the shipping industry.

It is vital for a country like Ireland to have a national airline. In practical terms, there is no need to consider privatisation. The Government's advisers have indicated that, as a maximum, the sale of 60% of the company will realise only approximately €400 million, which is the cost of three or four aeroplanes. We must remember that this is a very profitable company.

It is reasonable and fair that there should be full discussion at the committee, in the wider media and in the country generally in regard to the proposal. It is fundamentally flawed and will bring us down the road of ruin, as demonstrated by the cases of Eircom, the shipping industry, Irish Sugar and companies throughout the world.

Three members wish to contribute, namely, Deputies Glennon and Peter Power and Senator Morrissey. I ask them to be as brief as possible because for the past hour, the Minister has been waiting to appear before the committee with regard to next week's meeting.

I will be brief as I must attend another meeting. I am glad the joint committee has agreed how to proceed in respect of this motion. I welcome the motion because members of the committee should discuss this matter comprehensively. I support the proposition that the committee ought to do so in the most public and transparent way, that is, by inviting submissions from all who would be affected by this proposal, should it proceed. This is why I supported the public advertisement in the newspapers.

The wording of the motion suggests that the committee should conduct an examination of all aspects of the matter to hear the views of interested parties. In that context, I regret that members appear to be approaching this issue with a pile of preconceived notions. If members subscribe to this motion, they should listen to everyone's views impartially and then form their views on the matter. It is very regrettable that members should come with preconceived, albeit widely differing, notions.

Anyone who listens to the debate on this motion will receive an accurate glimpse of how the putative coalition would operate if it were in charge of the country. The parties have divergent views on how to deal with the matter. Deputy Olivia Mitchell looked for clarification. However, anyone who has an interest in this broader subject, within Aer Lingus or outside it, will have received anything but clarification on what the alternative rainbow coalition's position might be if it were in power today.

I will also be brief. I support the motion wholeheartedly and agree with everything said by my colleague, Deputy Peter Power. I have no intention of going into the issues raised by the motion, although I also enjoyed the debate between the putative coalition partners, along with the odd academic contribution thrown in.

As for the delay and the time factors involved in this process, I do not see how the joint committee can be accused of prolonging anything by hearing initial submissions on 6 April. It would take that length of time in any event. I hope there will be a significant number of applications to make further presentations to the committee. It will be vital for the joint committee to deal with them on an informed and wise basis with a view to having a balanced discussion and a speedy conclusion. In particular, I look forward to hearing the unions' contribution on 6 April. They have led this debate up to now and it is appropriate for them to start the ball rolling, as far as the public hearings are concerned.

I hope the committee does not receive too many worthless contributions and that a speedy conclusion will be drawn to a worthwhile exercise. I support the motion.

Like other speakers, I also support this motion, now that a Government decision has been made on how it sees the future of Aer Lingus. I am delighted that the management will be invited before the committee to give its brief regarding the company's future. I am also delighted to hear words such as "profit" and "rip-off" mentioned. Those members who used the term "rip-off", should note that the airline's former chief executive, Mr. Willie Walsh, publicly stated that Aer Lingus ripped off its customers for decades. Its customers were the people and taxpayers of Ireland.

It has done much for the people of Ireland.

As for profit, anyone running a private company would not be allowed to submit accounts that did not provide for its pension obligations. This company has not provided for its pension obligations or its pensioners and this issue should be addressed. If its management were present today, I would ask it how it intends to account for the company's future pension deficit under the current ownership, given that it also seeks investment from the Government. Is the management asking the Government and the taxpayers to bail out its existing pension deficit?

I refer to tourism and the concerns of former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, about an island economy. An examination of the numbers travelling to and from this country by air at present suggests there would not be much of a tourism market if we depended on Aer Lingus. Who carries the passengers in and out of this country? As for the fares Aer Lingus charges, I have attended previous committee meetings in which I heard Deputy Shortall state that fares are sufficiently low and reasonable at present. Is that the future we want?

The fares cannot go much lower.

I have heard Deputy Shortall ask the former chief executive, Mr. Willie Walsh, why Aer Lingus needed a long-haul fleet and why it did not strip its existing assets. We should be delighted——

I never said that.

That is not correct.

The Deputy should read the record.

The Senator must read it.

I hope the Senator will show it to me.

Deputy Shortall should not interrupt Senator Morrissey.

I hope Senator Morrissey will show me what he is talking about later.

Members should be delighted that Aer Lingus has a chief executive who is ambitious for the company. He has a €2 billion plan for future investment in a long-haul fleet and in replacing the short-haul fleet.

It is a pity the Minister was not also replaced.

Members should be delighted to have a management that is ambitious for Aer Lingus. While all members want to see it thrive, those who state that it is doing so at present are not looking at the full picture as one must also consider the issue of pension provision for the future. I am delighted this examination will take place and I look forward to the submissions.

I ask Deputy Seán Ryan to keep his contribution brief.

I welcome the committee's decision to conduct this examination. I get the impression that were it not for Deputy Shortall, this debate would not have taken place. The members appear to be concerned about a debate. I refer in the main to the Government parties in this respect. However, this debate should have taken place before the Aer Lingus Act was passed in 2004. A decision was taken by the Oireachtas whereby Deputy Glennon and the other Fianna Fáil Deputies voted for the sale of Aer Lingus. That is the reality. Aer Lingus is not about the trade unions.

On a point of order, the Aer Lingus Act 2004 did not legislate for the sale of Aer Lingus.

It legislated for the Cabinet's capacity to bring proposals to the Houses of the Oireachtas for a sale of Aer Lingus.

No, the Bill proposed and facilitated the sale of Aer Lingus.

The proposed Bill was amended.

It was amended in order that the Minister would not——

We have allowed Deputy Seán Ryan the courtesy of attending this committee meeting. The committee has agreed a motion as to how this issue will be dealt with. If the Deputy wishes to address the motion, he should do so. However, he should not engage in a cross harangue against his constituency colleague, as he is not personally concerned with the next general election.

I do not need the approval of the Chairman or anyone else to attend this meeting and make a contribution. I am an elected representative and have the right to come before it and make a contribution, which I will do as long as I am a Member of the House.

The Deputy should speak to the motion.

I am. I had an interest in the future of Aer Lingus, rather than the trade unions or staff, before I entered the House and my interest will continue when I leave. The Labour Party is very clear on the issue — it opposes the sale of Aer Lingus. Given the Aer Lingus Act 2004 which will enable the sale of the airline to take place, the Taoiseach and the Government have already taken the decision to sell Aer Lingus.

On a point of order, the Taoiseach and the Cabinet do not have the legal capacity to make such a decision.

We know they are incapable.

It is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas.

On a point of order, the Aer Lingus Act provides for the privatisation of the company.

Subject to——

On foot of an amendment from the Labour Party, the Government is now obliged to bring forward proposals on the precise nature of the sale to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

That was agreed by every Member of the House. Nobody objected to it.

The purpose of the Bill was to provide for the sale of the company.

The Deputy must clarify that it was an agreed amendment.

There are major issues to be debated. During the years most members of the media have argued that the interests of Aer Lingus would be best served by its sale. The media have not been balanced in their assessment of what is in the best interests of the country. When the debate begins, I hope a balance will be struck in media coverage.

I have listened to the new chief executive of Aer Lingus, a very capable individual who is doing an excellent job with staff to enable the company to compete with other airlines. However, he has told the committee that he will await a decision from the Government in respect of his post and act as instructed by it. Bringing the chief executive into the debate at this stage would be a waste of time since he is on the record as stating he does not make decisions about the company, that he will act on the decisions made by the Government and in the best interests of the company, regardless of whether it is publicly owned or subject to minority or majority shareholdings. I wonder whether any other information could be obtained from the chief executive on the direction we should take. I hope we will have an open and balanced debate on the matter.

I welcome the motion tabled by Deputy Shortall as this issue requires extensive debate. As my colleague, Deputy Mitchell, noted, the most important step is to make a decision on the future of Aer Lingus. It is very important that the company receives finance, whether through a shareholding or other means. Deputy Mitchell referred to the important issue of slots at Heathrow Airport and particularly the open skies policy which will probably take effect in the not too distant future. The committee should obtain independent legal advice on the Aer Lingus slots at Heathrow Airport.

We can do this in the context of the overall debate but we must first obtain the opinion of the Attorney General. We can then seek a second opinion, if necessary. I have no objection to writing to the Attorney General on behalf of the committee to discover the legal position on the Aer Lingus slots at Heathrow Airport if the Senator wishes me to do so.

I would welcome that because the issue is significant for air transport to and from this country. As Deputy Mitchell noted, US airlines could buy these slots for considerable amounts of money, which would be disastrous for this country.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.16 p.m and resumed at 4.17 p.m.
Barr
Roinn