Gay Mitchell
Question:5 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance if he will outline the current Government policy in relation to privatisation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Privatisation Policy.
Mervyn Taylor
Question:84 Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement outlining his and the Government's intentions and proposals regarding further privatisations; and if he will outline the assets which have been or are being considered for privatisation.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 84 together.
The Government's policy in this matter remains as set out in the original Programme for Government — we have no ideological views on the subject of State ownership. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress sets out certain principles relating to the commercial State sector which the Government have accepted, and these clearly state, as does the Programme for Government, that no change will take place in the ownership structure of any State company unless it is in the public interest and in the best interests of the company and its employees and after consultation with the social partners. That remains the position.
There are no specific proposals before the Government at present for the disposal of all or part of the State's share-holding in any State-owned companies.
Would the Minister agree that privatisation of other State companies at this stage means further unemployment? Have the Government taken into account the unemployment consequences of further privatisation at this stage in addition to taking into account the fiscal advantages for the State? Have the Government looked specifically at the consequences for employment of further privatisation?
Deputy Quinn and I had lengthy exchanges and agreed on some aspects last week. The matter raised by the Deputy was part of the discussions put forward, admittedly not by the Government, but by one of the social partners during the Programme for Economic and Social Progress negotiations. It arose in the Programme for National Recovery; and if there were good reasons for it the Government would discuss it with the representatives of the workers or directly with the workers involved where it would be in the best interests of the company and in the public interest. That was the basis for examining privatisation. Over the years I tended to be on the other side of the argument, but in the Irish Life case the expansion and retention of employment can be argued equally. The same applies to other State companies where there may be a valuable asset today but where changes — not perhaps tomorrow but in the medium and longer term — could remove that asset and the competitive advantage. The State does not have capital to invest in companies, therefore joint ventures or other arrangements should be examined. I should mention that that is in accord with the thinking of the Congress of Trade Unions.
Deputy G. Mitchell rose.
A very brief question, Deputy. The time for these questions is well nigh exhausted.
Can the Minister assure the House, given the unemployment crisis, that employment potential will be at the top of his list of considerations when any privatisation matters are being considered? I accept that joint ventures or privatisation may protect jobs, but by and large he should ensure——
Brevity please, Deputy.
——that employment is at the top of his list of priorities.
Employment is at the top of our agenda in relation to everything because it is the biggest problem both socially and economically.
We must now proceed to other questions. No. 6, please.