Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Dec 1996

Vol. 472 No. 5

Priority Questions. - Privatisation of State Companies.

Seamus Brennan

Question:

1 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications his views on the privatisation of State companies; the State business, if any, he envisages as likely candidates for part or full flotation; if he favours any part-flotation of Telecom Éireann; his views on the recent interview on this subject by the chief executive of Telecom Éireann; and if he will make a statement of his policy outlook in relation to State businesses and CIÉ in particular in view of the fact that a major strike is looming. [23616/96]

The Deputy will be pleased to note that the last phrase of his question is redundant in that no major strike is looming. I am pleased that issue has been resolved.

On the issue of privatisation, I would refer the Deputy to section 21 of the Government's programme for renewal, which clearly states that State assets will not be sold, except where it protects employment and is in the long-term strategic interest of the company and its stakeholders. The programme also gives a commitment to the retention of a majority State ownership in these companies and to the encouragement of opportunities for expansion to utilise the banks of skills in those companies.

With the exception of the proposed Telecom Éireann strategic alliance involving the sale of up to 35 per cent of the company, there are no plans to embark on a similar exercise in any of the other State companies under my control.

As regards the views attributed to the chief executive of Telecom Éireann regarding the part flotation of the company, the chief executive seems to have in mind the possible flotation of all or part of the 15 per cent shareholding which the strategic partner has an option to purchase in three years' time, together with an entitlement to call for a subsequent public offering of all or part of such shares. Such flotation, if it occurs, would be the basis for valuing all the shares sold to the alliance partners and determining the final payment for such shares.

It would be a matter for the Government to decide if such a public offering included any of the Government's own shares, having regard to the provisions in the Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996, to retain a majority shareholding.

In relation to the matter of general policy for State business, State bodies, as commercial companies, have to face dramatic challenges in an increasingly competitive environment. Furthermore, these commercial challenges will intensify over the coming years. In facing such challenges, I am concerned to ensure that the State companies manage their operations in the best interests of employees, taxpayers and most importantly, consumers. In short, I will be looking for State companies to become increasingly competitive, commercially orientated and customer focused.

In relation to the Deputy's specific reference to Córas Iompair Éireann, with effect from 1997 it is proposed to replace the existing State subvention for socially necessary, noncommercial services with public service contracts which will be transparent, objective and performance-based. It is clear from recent CIÉ financial results that the company's costs are very much out of line with its ability to generate revenue. This issue needs to be addressed urgently by both management and unions within a fixed timeframe. This is essential if the company is to be in a position to respond to increasing competition and EU-driven market liberalisation.

It is interesting that the Minister's first policy statement, as I understand it, is to the effect that there are no plans for any further privatisations. I had occasion to argue at length with his predecessor and the famous committee which comprised the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, and was aware of the policy concerning State companies and privatisation. That committee had a substantial input into whether or not there were privatisations. Will the Minister clarify my understanding of his policy statement that, other than Telecom, he has no plans to dispose of any shares in any other State company? Is that the Minister's policy?

I am pleased to clarify the Deputy's understanding, either to expand or to broaden it. I have stated what Government policy is, that State assets will not be sold except where it protects employment and is in the long-term interest of the company and its stakeholders. I have mentioned the other case which is going on at present and I have said there are now no plans in relation to any other State company. If, however, a situation were to arise where it appeared to be in the interest of protecting employment in the long-term strategic interest of another company and in the interest of the stakeholder to embark on a similar kind of process with any other company, I would be prepared to consider it.

As I understand it, the Minister does not see any such circumstances arising. His position as of now, unless something arises, is that he has no plans for any further privatisations in the State sector. That is an important policy statement in view of the Minister's background and some of his previous statements. Many of the State companies will be interested in whether the Minister has any privatisation plans for the future. I am being told there are no such plans unless some circumstances arise, as happened in Telecom Éireann, in which case he would consider it. As I see it now the Minister has no plans for privatisation.

The chief executive of Telecom Éireann has been quoted as saying he would like to see Telecom customers owning an equity stake in the company and the easiest way to bring this about would be to float a percentage of the company. He said it was reasonable to assume that that would happen within three years. I realise he is speaking about the shares held by the Dutch and the Swedes but is it fair that the shares about to be held by the Dutch and the Swedes in Telecom Éireann, which could not be held by Irish people, should be sold off in this manner, even within three years? Does the Minister agree with the chief executive that a flotation is likely within three years? Is it fair that the people who have bought in at a ridiculously low price should now be thinking about selling out that share at a windfall profit?

I do not accept that people bought in for a ridiculously low price. The Deputy knows perfectly well we do not yet know the price because all the circumstances that go into determining that price have not come about. As pointed out in my reply, it seems the chief executive had in mind the possible flotation of all or part of that 15 per cent shareholding which the strategic partner would have an option to purchase. If the Deputy needs any more information about what the chief executive had in mind I suggest he ask the chief executive who is perfectly entitled to have his views on the matter. When he has views on the matter I will be delighted to hear them. No such flotation could take place without the Government deciding it because the Government has to decide, not anybody else.

Deputy Brennan will appreciate that I cannot remain unduly long on any particular question. Let us not forget the time factor. Already we have devoted some ten minutes of the very limited amount of time available to me on this question. I will allow a brief and final question from the Deputy.

The strike at CIÉ, which has thankfully been averted, was threatened because CIÉ did not want to pay the 2.5 per cent Programme for Competitiveness and Work award. Does the Minister agree that the management of CIÉ, in making a stand on not paying an award which is an agreed figure between workers and management in a national agreement, was extremely provocative and appeared to be engineering a dispute and wasting the time of everyone concerned? Does the Minister agree that CIÉ management should have agreed to pay the Programme for Competitiveness and Work in the first place and not engineered this artificial crisis?

The board of CIÉ is responsible for its own decisions and it is not my business to second guess the board. The decision by the board of CIÉ and the unions to accept the Labour Court recommendation was the right one in the circumstances. I am glad the agreement of the two groups to accept that decision has averted what would have been a damaging strike for everybody concerned.

Top
Share