In the Seanad on 3 March 2004, speaking on the 2nd Stage of the Aer Lingus Bill 2004, I said:

I have the odd feeling tonight of having gone to a funeral only to find myself saying, “Is this not the same poor fellow we buried four years ago?”

That has never happened to me in real life and until today it had not happened to me in my 11 year career as a legislator.

Talking about funerals is not inappropriate on this occasion. Many Members will remember the atmosphere in this House on a sunny day in June 2000 when we rushed through the Aer Lingus Bill 2000. I am sure the Leader remembers it well because she was the Minister responsible at the time. There was the air of a wake on that evening as Member after Member recalled their nostalgic memories of the Aer Lingus we had grown up to love and be proud of.

The purpose of that Bill was to approve the Government’s decision to sell off the airline by means of an initial public offering, an IPO. There was some urgency about passing the Bill because it was felt there was a window of opportunity which had to be taken advantage of. Most of us felt that selling off the airline in that way was inevitable and that we did not have a choice in the matter. We saw it as the only way forward if the airline was to survive.

What do we find today? The airline we waked with such enthusiasm four years ago is not dead at all. It is not even at death’s door. Despite having had a close brush with failure in the meantime, it has transformed itself, through a survival plan, into a highly successful and profitable company. What is more, it has succeeded in doing this while remaining in public ownership.

Our reaction to this should be to congratulate everyone concerned. They deserve that. I congratulate the management and, particularly, the staff of the airline. The staff have made many sacrifices to make the survival happen. I do not begrudge them the 15% share in the company, which is one of the purposes of the Bill.

We must look again at the need to sell off the airline. It may seem inconsistent to have been in favour of an IPO four years ago and now to ask questions about the issue of a sell-off. However, there is an important difference, which is a cardinal point of principle. When the Leader brought the previous Bill before us, we were presented with a done deal. The Government had approved the IPO, consultants had been engaged to start the process and make it happen and the purpose of the Bill was to give legislative sanction to that process.

The House was asked to endorse a Government decision that had already been taken and it did so. It was, to us, the correct thing to do.

Time has passed, circumstances have changed and the idea of an IPO died a death along the way. So did the Aer Lingus Bill 2000. We are now being asked to buy a horse of a different colour.

The question of selling the airline has been put on the table again, not through an IPO but probably through a trade sale. However, no Government decision on this matter has yet been taken. Let me say that again. No Government decision on this matter has yet been taken. The Minister for Transport has not decided what is the right way forward. Until he decides, the Government as a whole will not become involved. In discussions about the matter the Minister has freely acknowledged there is much to be said on both sides of the issue.

The question of the future of the slots Aer Lingus holds at Heathrow has been raised repeatedly. They are an important national asset but the country does not own them. Aer Lingus owns them. They are a national asset owned by Aer Lingus. If we lose control of the airline we lose control of the slots, which could have a devastating impact on our tourism industry. This is not a fanciful scenario. Consider what has happened in the past few years on the telecommunications front where the privatised Eircom has been systematically obstructing and undermining the key national priority to roll out broadband and to make it accessible to the whole country at a reasonable price.

There is much to be argued on both sides of the Aer Lingus issue. The Minister and the Government have not made up their minds. Nevertheless, we are being asked to make our minds up and give a blank cheque to the Government on this critical matter of national importance.

Why the need for this blank cheque?

Thanks to the uproar in the other House and the way Deputies greeted the original Bill the amended Bill includes a saving clause, section 3(5), which states:

However, now that this concession has been squeezed out of the Minister, the need to include the power to sell shares in this Bill is fatally undermined. As the measure has come to the Oireachtas for approval, why not do so by means of a two section Bill? On many occasions in the past the Oireachtas has shown it is capable of responding quickly and urgently, so urgency cannot be pleaded in objection.

I cannot stress too much my objection to incorporating a blank cheque into legislation, especially into legislation concerned with the future of one of our main national assets. If the Government brings a decision before the Legislature for approval it gets that approval after the necessary scrutiny. Putting a complete blank cheque into a Bill removes that essential element of legislative scrutiny. We must not - I hope we will not - make laws on the principle of “whatever you’re having yourself, sir”. This is the important issue which lies at the heart of the Bill before the House and it is why I cannot support it in its present form.

I urge the Minister to think again and to follow through the natural consequence of the amendment already accepted by deleting section 3 altogether.