Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Oct 2011

Vol. 743 No. 3

Sale of State Assets: Statements

I understand the reluctance of many people to contemplate the sale of any of our State assets. My party is among them.

Our commercial State companies have served this country well down through the years. Many of them have been, and will continue to be, a core part of our economy involved in delivering strategic infrastructure and key services across a number of different sectors over many years. They have innovated and developed significant expertise and technical knowledge and skills and have generated significant employment throughout the country. It is for that reason the Government remains committed to ongoing State involvement in critical areas of our economic development. However, we now find ourselves facing unprecedented challenges. As Deputies will be aware, we are currently dependent on the financial assistance provided under the EU-IMF funding programme for the continued day-to-day operation of this State. This year, the gap between Exchequer revenues and spending will be approximately €15 billion, even after the costs associated with repairing the banking system have been excluded. This is simply not sustainable. The overwhelming public need now, therefore, must be to bring sustainability to the public finances and to foster economic growth. In these circumstances, it would be negligent of Government not to carefully examine all reasonable means to raise revenue and to reduce expenditure, including the release of some of the value across a wide range of our State assets. However, the sale of State assets is not a decision for Government alone. The previous Government sealed our fate in this regard.

As the State currently has no other borrowing avenues available to it, the funds we require are being provided by the EU and IMF. These funds do not come without conditions. In return, we are required to have in place a credible programme to ensure the State's financial sustainability, with detailed conditions attached to the borrowings being set out in the memorandum of understanding between Ireland and the EU-IMF-ECB. One of these conditions is that the State commits to a programme of asset disposal as part of the solution to the current fiscal crisis. It is for these reasons that the Government has agreed to the sale of a minority stake in the ESB. The Government is of course mindful of the need to ensure that this process is not detrimental to the continued future growth of the economy. Having learned from past experience, the Government is determined that we will not relinquish control of any strategic assets without appropriate safeguards being put in place to ensure that investment in such assets is maintained at appropriate levels.

In this context then there is a need to seek to reach an informed view as to what is actually strategic and essential to the national interest. I welcome the views of the Deputies opposite in that regard. For example, while I acknowledge that it can certainly be argued that ownership and control of electricity, gas and other utility transmission networks, such as water, is strategic, it is questionable whether outright 100% State ownership of these assets is required. The same can be said for other areas of their businesses such as energy generation and supply.

With such issues in mind, the review group on State assets and liabilities was established by the previous Government to examine the potential for asset disposals to relieve the State's growing debt burden and how the assets in State ownership could be best used to help growth and investment in the economy. The assets focused on included the ESB, Bord Gáis, Coillte, Bord na Móna, Dublin Airport, the ports, RTE, CIE and An Post.

Since its publication in April, the report's recommendations have been closely studied by the Government. Having carefully considered all the options, it decided that, as an initial demonstration of intent, it would be prepared to sell a minority stake in the ESB as an integrated utility. The Government believes by releasing value from this State asset, while still retaining ownership and control of the company, valuable resources can be freed up that can be put to productive use in the economy and help reduce debt levels. However, the disposal will only be undertaken when market conditions are right and when adequate regulatory structures are in place to protect consumer interests. As Ministers have stated since the announcement of this decision, the State will not sell equity in the ESB at a fire sale price.

My Department and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources are jointly chairing an interdepartmental group which is considering the best approach to the sale of a minority stake in the ESB, taking into account energy policy, regulatory, legal, financial and economic considerations. This group will report back to the Government by the end of November with a recommendation on the best option for a minority sale and also the timescale in which the sale will be completed. No decision has yet been taken on the size of the minority stake to be sold or the amount to be generated from the sale. These matters will be determined by the outcome of the process I have referred to and will take account of the need to strike a balance between achieving the highest possible return for the Exchequer and maintaining appropriate policy goals.

The Government sees merit for the economy in retaining the ESB as a single unit. The decision to sell a minority stake in the company as an integrated utility presumes that the Commission for Energy Regulation certifies compliance with EU directives for the ESB to retain ownership of the transmission network in the State and subsequent approval by the European Commission. The process of seeking the necessary approvals in this regard is under way. I am interested in hearing the views of the Members opposite if they believe the ESB should be held together as an integrated entity or whether the transmission lines should be disaggregated. This may be a battle we may have to fight.

The Government also agreed it is prepared, in principle, to undertake further asset sales but no decision has been taken on any other particular assets at this stage. A separate process has, however, been initiated to value several potential assets in this context to inform any further decisions the Government may wish to make on this matter.

In all of this, the Government is conscious more may need to be done than merely look for assets to sell to reduce our debt. We also need to invest in the economy and restore competitiveness. The programme for Government contains a commitment to release value from the State's portfolio of assets with the intention of using these proceeds to fund investment in the productive capacity of the economy. It set a target of up to €2 billion in asset sales but only to be sold when market conditions are right and when adequate regulatory structures have been established to protect consumer interests.

One key issue that remains to be discussed with our funding partners on our asset disposal programme is how the proceeds of any asset disposals should be applied. There is still strong resistance from our interlocutors not to apply them exclusively to debt retirement.

Will the Minister clarify that last point?

I can during the question and answer session later.

The view from the troika was the sale of State assets was required and must be applied to pay down the debt, as had happened in other IMF programme countries. From the beginning when we took office, we have argued we want to apply a portion of the sales of those assets to investing in future jobs. This is an ongoing point of engagement with the troika.

The Government's policy of releasing value from State assets for productive investment in the economy and for debt reduction, while continuing to protect key assets of strategic importance to the economy, is an appropriate response to the enormous fiscal and economic challenges facing the economy. It will also contribute to bringing about sustainability to the public finances and to fostering economic growth.

The Minister has raised many issues. While it would be easy for me to harangue the Government for what I consider is a bad decision on the sale of State assets, we must look at this rationally in the cold light of day and decide the best option. I know the Minister in his heart and soul feels uncomfortable with the Government's decision.

It must be clarified that the EU-IMF memorandum of understanding signed by the previous Government contains no commitment to or figure for the sale of State assets. The MOU states, "the Government will undertake an independent assessment of the electricity and gas sectors with a view to enhancing their efficiency [a point we all agree with] with a view to setting appropriate targets for the possible privatisation of State-owned assets".

The first part of this was done by the McCarthy report on the privatisation of State assets. During the summer when I was on so-called "holidays", I read the McCarthy report from beginning to end and its proposals for every company. I often do not agree with what Mr. McCarthy writes but this report on privatisation was well written, useful and informative.

What one finds from the report is a proposal to sell off, say, RTE's 2FM—it does not serve any great national purpose being just a pop station—would not realise any significant amount of money. The report also referred to the National Stud, but again no significant moneys would be involved in its sale.

Accordingly, after all the proposals were crystallised, the Government found out the only way to raise serious moneys would be to sell off the ESB. No other sale would raise significant moneys in the context of State spending. While I accept certain small parts of State businesses could be sold, the McCarthy report proved there is not a whole lot of ready cash in the State sector that could be realised to be invested in other sectors. There is also no major source of moneys from the State sector without huge downsides.

One example is Coillte Teoranta in which Coillte's crop is sold off but the land-holding is retained in State ownership, a rather neat arrangement. I have had, however, dealings with Coillte wearing two hats, a commercial one, as manager of my local timber mill and a rural recreational one, when I was Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. I found that, as an integrated company, Coillte Teoranta was able to marry its positive pursuit of timber industries with rural recreation, in which it was making a sizable investment for no direct fiscal return, on the grounds that doing so was in the national interest. Some 45% of waymarked ways are through Coillte's lands. Year in, year out, Coillte has invested in providing mountain bike trails and so on.

Is the Minister telling me that, if Coillte owns the crop and wants to get it out, it will not assert that its job is not rural recreation, even for a marginal increase in return and no matter how much failure to do so will discommode the tourism industry we are building? We have gone from 200,000 walkers to 500,000. We are heading for 1 million. Coillte will say this does not matter because it is a commercial company. It will get the value and close the walkways. We have been able to marry the two concerns under the current structure.

We made a firm decision in government because we learned from past mistakes, particularly with Comhlucht Siúcra Éireann. I was a Member of the Seanad at the time and the Minister is the only Member present who was a Deputy. We were given all sorts of guarantees about golden shares, minority stakes and so on. No matter what the Minister believes he will do or how good his intentions are, the situation will change once the Government starts selling parts of the transmission line. Consider other cases. If the Government sells 20% or 25%, two things will——

Does the Deputy believe the company should be broken up?

No. I have antipathy towards two matters. The Minister and I share similar views in this regard. First, I have an antipathy towards the competition god of Europe, which is the real cause of the problem in the banks. We can all blame one another, but the fundamental mistake was that, when the euro was set up, Europe watched governments' deficits but left the international banks alone. The idea that we can control the banks from the Houses is simplistic. The Bank of Scotland and a range of non-Irish banks are just as bad as the Irish banks. Money came in thanks to the free market. There was a fallacious belief that the free market and competition solved all problems.

There is still a social democrat in Deputy Ó Cuív.

I am probably much more to the left than the Minister is acting.

The Deputy is in the wrong party.

Only because of Senator Ó Clochartaigh.

No, I was this way long before the Senator ever appeared on the scene. If Deputy Keaveney checks my record, he will see that I canvassed publicly against our entry into the European Union, which was probably before he was born.

My record on the matter is well known.

Second, I would like to retain the company as a single entity as far as possible. Separating the network from the transmission system was mentioned, but I cannot see the logic. Some of the 110 kV lines are considered transmission whereas others are considered network. If transmission is different, large areas of the west technically have network lines and no transmission lines. It is a fallacious argument. As time passes, what is now network will become transmission because more power will start coming from wind farms in the west.

The Minister's comments were right, but I hope he will reflect on my next remarks. The minute the Government sells a stake, no matter how small, someone on the board can force every shareholder to say that the return on the capital is more important than any national interest. The ESB has been helpful in ensuring the industrial price for electricity remains competitive. When the construction industry collapsed and the timber mills hit the wall, Coillte adjusted prices and allowed our mills to return to the market. After eight weeks, they were working flat out exporting timber. Without a State entity to take a rational national view, this would not have been the case.

I predict that, if the Government sells a minority stake——

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

It is a pity we do not have longer, as we could go into greater detail. If the Government sells 20%, the temptation to sell off another slice when it is short of money will be great. Selling will be handy and painless compared with making cutbacks and raising extra taxes, and slice after slice will be sold off until the whole pie is gone. All sorts of reasons will be given as to why this will work, but we will regret the decision five or ten years down the road.

I was pleased to learn today that there would be no fire sales. The Government will spend more than €200 billion in the next four years, yet this approach will only realise €2 billion. I do not believe the Government's assertion that the troika is insisting on €2 billion. If the troika has an ideological hang-up, all of us who believe in State enterprises must fight it.

Before we take this route, people should read the McCarthy report carefully. It shows how successful State enterprises are. Consider the reinvention of Bord na Móna or Coillte, which uses its property in a better way than many private companies do. Bord na Móna has created a new energy company that uses waste energy and so on. It is a lie to claim that if money is taken from these companies and given to the private sector, the latter will create more jobs than the former.

Will the Minister return to his colleagues and reflect on this matter? They should reconsider their policy and avoid making a fatal mistake just to get short-term cash.

The Minister's statement of reluctance to sell off State assets or parts thereof was genuine. I urge him to listen to his instinct. I urge his colleagues in government to do likewise. This proposal is a classic case of short-term thinking. Deputy Ó Cuív was right, in that the McCarthy report, if it did nothing else, shone a light on the commercial success of the semi-State sector in terms of dividends and taxes returned to the State and employment over a sustained period. The report also reflected the fact that the companies' assets are not Johnny-come-latelies. They have been built through generations of effort and investment by citizens.

This was the best bit of the report. Otherwise, it was a shoddy piece of work. It suggested wholesale selling without a compelling argument as to how doing so would enhance the return to the State, our competitiveness, our infrastructure or employment opportunities.

Other than his reluctance, the Minister also reminded the House of the need to address our €15 billion budgetary shortfall. He is correct, but the question confronting us is whether the sale of State assets in whole or in part assists or hinders the process in the long term. Sinn Féin is of the opinion that State assets must be kept in public ownership. We do not argue this from a dogmatic ideological platform, but on a pragmatic basis. In the energy sector, ESB and Bord Gáis are large, profitable organisations that we have not leveraged correctly in terms of infrastructural provision and employment opportunities. We want the Government and the State to do this but the only way of doing so is to keep them 100% in public ownership.

In the course of the Minister's commentary he did not address the impact of a private stake in any of these entities. Those who would choose to invest and become shareholders have a legitimate expectation of a return on their investment. This is how it works and the Minister and I know it. For the Minister to pretend this private profit-making interest would have no influence in the workings or strategy of a commercial semi-State body is disingenuous. The Minister knows full well it would change the essential dynamic of these companies.

The Minister asks whether the ESB specifically should be kept as a vertically integrated utility and the answer is absolutely yes. The value of this company is precisely in the fact that it is integrated. It is how the ESB has historically so successfully borrowed on the international markets and invested in its network and I am sure the Minister is aware of this. The same goes for Bord Gáis. The value in State companies is to keep them as coherent entities. This is why they attract investment and why they are powerful companies.

On several occasions when they have spoken on this matter, I have asked the Minister and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, to pin down for us the exact distinction they make between strategic and non-strategic assets. To date, they have not done so. Let me give the Minister my view. The ESB is strategic, and energy and electricity are strategic.

Therefore, it makes no sense on this basis to countenance selling off any portion of the company. The Minister states the merit of his proposal is that the Government will still have a majority stake. This seems to be the Minister's view. I put it to him that the moment he introduces private shareholders into the equation the fundamental thrust of the organisation in terms of meeting the needs of the State in the strategic medium and long term is fatally undermined. The Minister's approach is short term. He made reference to the Eircom experience and we know what happened there. We have seen this company asset stripped and sweated and its value literally collapse after privatisation.

This is not privatisation.

As the Minister steps down this path he opens up the prospect of a similar experience for the other commercial semi-State bodies. The Minister is very unwise to have conceded to the troika that he would even consider the sale — and it would be a fire sale in these market conditions — of valuable State assets. He pointed the finger at Fianna Fáil and I accept that Deputy Ó Cuív was dancing on the head of a pin so I will not argue with the Minister on this point. However, the Minister is now in the job and he is a person from a party which historically has had a commitment to the commercial semi-State sector. Irrespective of the view of the troika he needs to stand firm on this historical analysis because it is the correct one. The Minister can choose to sell off parts of the semi-State bodies to yield a modest short-term payment some of which he may get to invest in jobs, or he can take the longer-term view and harness the capacities and potentials of these companies to serve the State and the citizens and no other master.

The Minister tells us two processes are under way, one in respect of the ESB which will conclude at the end of November and the other to value assets. Without wishing to be rude to the Minister——

The Deputy would never be that.

——I am working on the assumption that the valuation of these assets is with an eye to taking a decision on whether to dispose of them in whole or in part.

Let us return to first principles and remind ourselves why the likes of the Minister, the Labour Party and many others and successive Administrations have put such a value and emphasis on the commercial semi-State bodies. It is because we have an understanding that the State has an obligation to its citizens to provide vital services. It is because we have an understanding that for the strategic development of our country and economy the State must play an active role. It is because we know when private capital and private interest enter the fray whether we intend it or not they distort those two objectives. This scenario is no different now.

Yes, we need to bridge our structural deficit and reduce the debt. Above all, we need to get people back to work and get Ireland match-fit for indigenous enterprise and international investment. A fire sale of these assets is not the way to do this. It will not assist the process of recovery. Rather, I put it to the Minister that it will prove to be the worst type of short-term politics opportunistically seized upon by some private investors. I genuinely believe if the Minister proceeds down this path, given his stated reservations and discomfort with it, it will be a decision and process which not alone the Minister but the entire population will bitterly regret.

I call Deputy Clare Daly who will share time with Deputies Boyd Barrett, Pringle and Healy. They have ten minutes between them.

It is a fact that there cannot be economic recovery without job creation. In this debate a totally wrong premise is being repeatedly stated by the Government, which is that the State does not create jobs.

I did not state that.

Your colleagues have done so repeatedly. I said "the Government".

Deputy Richard Bruton stated it.

I did not state it.

I have never heard Deputy Richard Bruton state it.

It is an absolute fallacy, repeated made by the larger party in government in particular.

In reality, the State is a key employer of more than 300,000 people in the public sector and 45,000 in semi-State bodies. It is a vital cog in job creation. There is no such thing as a non-strategic State asset in my opinion. All of these companies have historically played and at present play a vital role in our economic development in terms of providing relatively secure decent permanent employment, quality products and services, and regional development. In the company where I worked, Aer Lingus, we made the point that the taxation revenue from the workforce alone was greater than all of the tax generated from the farming community, and the role of this community is never disputed. The idea of selling a portion of these companies to raise funds to perhaps create jobs as the Minister stated is absolute nonsense.

In the first case, the Minister admitted his masters have not even given him permission to do this and to use the money to do so. Even if they had, it would be ridiculous because to use money to create jobs by a mechanism which inevitably leads to job losses, which privatisation always does — and one may change the label but selling a stake in State assets is privatisation — would be absolute lunacy. We very much reject the à la carte menu offered to us by the Minister of what type of privatisation we would like to see in the ESB, whether to sell off parts of it or a percentage of the whole. We reject any of these options. What the Minister is peddling is upside down economics. He should be investing in these companies as a key driver of economic growth and recovery.

Any idea where I would get the money?

Yes, the Minister could use some of the private State pension funds which amount to approximately €120 billion——

The Deputy was opposed to the pension levy.

——and encourage investment of this money——

Raid private funds?

The Deputy's time has expired.

No, not raid them, give them a bond or guarantee.

They would get more return on that for investing in Irish industry.

Force them——

Rather than selling off sections of these companies——

Where would we get the money?

——the Minister should be investing in the likes of the ESB. He should have a vision, like some of his predecessors——

This is Darby O'Gill economics.

The Deputy is way over time.

——to develop projects like Ardnacrusha and employ 500 extra engineers to develop wave and wind power. We could be leaders in energy creation which would drive the economy. Instead the Minister is a disgrace to his founding fathers——

Will the Deputy explain how will I pay for this?

If the Ceann Comhairle gives me an extra ten minutes I will be happy to do so.

The Deputy is way over time and she is taking time from her other colleagues. There is just over six minutes remaining between the rest.

It is bad enough that those with special needs and low-paid workers, our accident and emergency services, and workers struggling to make ends meet, the 350,000 people who have lost their jobs or the 200,000 who have left the country, have to pay to satisfy the greed of the bankers and the bondholders which the Government, the EU and the IMF wish to protect.

I do not wish to protect anyone.

That is what the Minister's policy amounts to.

I wish to protect our country.

It is sacrificing the needs of our society——

Through the Chair, please.

This is old tosh.

——and the needs of our most vulnerable citizens to pay off bankers and bondholders. This is what the Minister is doing. If all of this is not bad enough, there might be some justification for it if it contributed one iota towards economic growth and recovery and eventually putting people back to work.

I invite the Deputy to give me some positive ideas.

The issue of State assets exposes the lie of this strategy. This is about getting rid of the very resources and assets that could create jobs, that could provide the engine for economic recovery——

The Deputy has not one idea.

The Minister knows well because he has read the ICT report on the Eircom privatisation which was published this year. It makes me laugh to hear Fianna Fáil criticising the possible sale of State assets when they presided over Eircom, which was a disaster, led to 5,000 jobs being lost and to massive enrichment for Tony O'Reilly, Goldman Sachs, George Soros and all the rest of the vultures. It is shameful for a Labour Party Minister and a Labour Party Government to stand over in any way or to justify the sale of State assets which the Minister knows has been a disaster in the past and which will do nothing but enrich corporate vultures, chief executive officers who will be getting inordinate salaries while at the same time resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs. It is beyond debating. What we need to do is to get out on the streets like the Greeks and the Americans and resist this. It is shameful that the Labour Party should be part of it.

I refer to the title of today's debate, which refers to releasing the value of State assets to help stimulate economic growth. It would be a positive discussion if we were considering releasing the value of State assets and discussing how State assets and the semi-State companies could contribute to the development of the growth of the economy. However, what we are really debating is the sale, which has been agreed, of a minority stake in the ESB and to bring a private interest into what is a valuable State asset. This asset could be directed by this Government to work for the good and the development of the overall economy. The ESB could be used to roll out fibre optic broadband to every house in the country. It is the only utility with a physical connection to every property in the country. This would provide world-class communications, something missing completely since Fianna Fáil sold off Eircom and destroyed any potential it had for the development of broadband infrastructure. The Minister and the Government constantly question where the money will come from. The ESB has shown that it can raise funds and it has carried out developments all over the world——

It is affected by the sovereign, unfortunately.

It returns a dividend to the State every year that can be used. It might be a longer term return and it will not provide the big hit which the Government wishes but going for a short-term gain for a long-term loss is a problem.

The taunt of where will the money come from, was heard again this morning and we hear it almost every day in this Chamber. I have said time and again and I will repeat for the Minister where the money could be found.

We know that the wealthiest 5% of the population have assets of approximately €250 billion. We know from recent Central Statistics Office figures that in the year 2009 alone, those same people gained an additional €27.2 billion. These are CSO figures, not my figures. These people do not pay a ha'penny in wealth tax. If they were in most other European countries they would pay a wealth tax and if they were in most states in the United States they would also pay a wealth tax but this Fine Gael-Labour Party Government, like the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government before it, exempts those people from payment of a reasonable share of taxation.

That is nonsense.

These people are getting away scot free. It is about time this Government looked for a bit of patriotism from people who are very wealthy and who have very significant assets——

Deputy Healy should send me the proposal and I will have it costed.

——and who are freeloading on the backs of middle and lower income families——

Enough of the rhetoric.

I refer the Minister to previous Ministers for Finance and to a former Minister, Richie Ryan. He was a Fine Gael Minister for Finance and he introduced a wealth tax which was abolished afterwards by Fianna Fáil. If that wealth tax was in place now at the rate of 2% as at the time, it would be bringing in €5 billion per year. It is not unrealistic and it is most reasonable to suggest to these people with such large amounts of money that in addition to a wealth tax they should pay a once-off contribution to the State of about 10% of their assets. This would amount to approximately €25 billion. That kind of money and that kind of ongoing wealth tax——

The farmers' land.

——would fund real job creation. It would also take the weight of austerity and the recession off the backs of ordinary people.

A Deputy

Well done, Deputy Healy.

I call Deputy Dara Murphy who is sharing time with Deputy Paschal Donohoe, with five minutes each.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I welcome the ambition to keep the ESB together as a single unit and that only a minority share is being considered for sale. There has been the usual emotive language from the Opposition with terms such as "fire sale" and "short-term benefits at the expense of long-term gain". The opposite is the case. This is a very measured approach, bearing in mind the commitment in the EU-IMF deal to sell State assets in order to repay our debts.

We must acknowledge that the past six or seven months of this Government has changed the standing of Ireland within the European Union. We have negotiated an interest rate reduction and the economy has experienced growth. It must be accepted that after five years our unemployment levels are falling, albeit at a modest rate. For the first time in many years, this gives the Government the opportunity to make the case to those in Europe and those who loaned us the money that it has the competence and vision to take a portion of the money that can be achieved from the sale of State assets and reinvest it within the economy.

There has been much crazy economics cited in the debate, with figures of €5 billion touted and taking total values of wealth as if that is how taxation is secured. The way to achieve the ultimate repayment of our debt is to do so through economic growth. Rather than selling the assets and repaying the debt, we should continue to send the strong message that our Government is delivering — the troika is in Dublin as we speak — and that the ambition is to use moneys raised to secure further growth in the economy. The semi-State sector has been extremely successful over many decades and there can and will be new job creation in new semi-State bodies that may be developed in the context of NewERA, which is ambitious and forward-thinking and the correct approach to take. To suggest the Government has a policy of reducing the number of people employed in the semi-State sector is false. The Government sees huge potential in developing new State agencies that will serve the people long into the future.

The other issue is how we look at our State assets. Over the past number of months there has been a considerable improvement in the number of foreign and domestic groups interested in coming and looking at these assets. One of the more interesting proposals that has arisen recently is the suggestion of lease agreements, whereby the State could, at a reasonable value to the Exchequer, enter into agreements that would release money back to the State without fully disposing of the asset. That suggestion, along with the report due in November — I welcome the haste with which the Department acted on this — should be considered in the context of the valuation being made of all of our State assets.

The constant and persistent suggestion from Independent Members that the objective of the Government is anything other than patriotic is nonsense. The Government is motivated by patriotism and is trying to pull the country back to be the first programme country of the three that will be released and will regain its sovereignty, as a result of the prudent and ambitious programme we are undertaking today.

Given the aspirations that have been voiced by some colleagues regarding the need to fund investment and job creation, the only question that matters is where we will get the money to do it. In his contribution, Deputy Healy was honest enough to say that is the question that must be answered and he said he would answer it. Some of his colleagues looked at him with concern and Members on this side looked at him with anticipation because they wonder where the money for all of this is to be found. The answer trotted out was the introduction of a wealth tax here. Let us be clear. There is no economy in Europe that has put in place a wealth tax that has not resulted in the middle classes and any owners of property having to pay additional tax as a result. That is the way a wealth tax is implemented. The idea of introducing a new tax to tax wealth that is resident in Ireland is the kind of measure that will result in a further flight of deposits from our banking system, resulting in taxpayers being asked to cough up more to deal with that. If that happened, those people on the Opposition side of the House would be the first to protest against the introduction of such a measure.

A further incoherent suggestion came from Deputy Clare Daly. She stood up and said that what we need to do is to get the semi-State bodies to fund job creation. If it was as easy as that, why is that not being done currently? There are two reasons that is not being done. First, they cannot access and raise the funding and, second, if they go to the markets looking for funding, they need the support and funding of the State, which is not in a position to provide it. She then put forward the suggestion that the pension funds could provide the funding. However, she and others on that side of the House are the very people who argued and voted against the implementation of the pension levy, a levy which was designed to access funding from private pensions, some of the funding for which was enabled by pension tax reliefs from the State. The Deputy voted against this levy saying it was a raid on private pensions, but now she stands up and says that is what she wants to happen. That is incoherence. It is incoherence on a point that is too important and serious to deal with.

This was illustrated again by what Deputy Boyd Barrett said. He said we need to go down the Greek route and do what Greece is doing. Let us look at what is happening in Greece. It is on the verge of increasing its equivalent to VAT by three percentage points. Who will suffer most from that? It will be the very people the Deputy claims he wants to represent. Greece is on the verge of suspending 30,000 members of the public service. Is that the route the Deputy wants to take? Is that what he advocates as the right course for us? If it is, he should have the honesty to say so and to spell out the consequences.

The Government recognise two things. It recognises that the first thing we need to do is to reduce the total stock of debt with which the economy must deal. However, let us be clear about the rhetoric. It is being suggested here that the banks and the bailing out of the banks are what is driving this debt. Of course, that is an element of it, but the €15 billion deficit of this State, a gap we must close this year, has nothing to do with the cost of bailing out the banks. The banks are on top of that. Next year, when we get into dealing with our budget deficit, there will be a portion of the deficit that will be driven by bailing out the banks and we accept that. However, the majority of the deficit next year will be driven by the fact that there is an unsustainable gap between what we take in through taxation and what we spend.

The question remains, a question the Opposition has failed to even try to answer, of where the money will come from to fund job creation and ensure our debt is paid down. The Government recognises the tension and difficulty of doing this and is putting in place a process to reconcile the situation. At least, it is putting forward answers that are coherent. When we hear the same coming from the Opposition, we can then have a proper debate on the issue.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. I am disappointed the Minister is not here, but I am sure he will be back to take questions.

It is a sad day. It is sad that we are here to talk about selling shares in the ESB, EirGrid, Bord Gáis, Coillte and Bord na Móna. Each of these is a strategic asset. The Minister will almost try and tell us that the provision of light, heat, fuel and power to people's homes and industry is not a strategic issue, but it certainly is. Deputy Donohoe asked where the money would come from and I can answer him. He said we should not take the Greek route because it is about to lay off 30,000 public servants. That is precisely the number the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, proposes to lay off. Perhaps the Minister should let the other parties in Government know that is what he is doing.

They are not being laid off.

They will have no job at the end of it. That is the same thing to me.

I am shocked that the Labour Party has been snookered into this. The Minister, who is a shareholder, is selling these assets. Another Labour Party Minister, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, will be the front line Minister for the sale of some of these assets and we have a Minister of State from the Labour Party, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, here to take the flack on their behalf. One only needs to ask anybody, not to mind one's supporters, whether he or she sees any sense in what is being done and the answer will be "No".

I was here for an hour and a half of Question Time with the Minister on Tuesday and we had positive and good exchanges. He said that what I had to say made sense and we agreed on a lot of things. However, I do not agree with one syllable of what is proposed in this regard. The people of Ireland do not agree with it either. I will give the alternative.

The Deputy should have told Brian Lenihan how he felt before he signed up to this.

Selling the ESB is the first nail in the coffin of the Labour Party in this Government. That should have been the red line issue on going into Government, but there was no red line because the Labour Party was so eager to get into government. It is not necessary to sell these assets. I accept from this side that mistakes were made in the past with selling the likes of Eircom, but it is important to learn from mistakes.

We have learned and the Government should learn. I accept that mistakes were made but one learns from the mistakes of the past.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has tried to confuse the issue of the EU a few times. The current Minister for Finance has admitted that there was no commitment on the sale of State assets worth €2 billion in the memorandum of understanding signed in December 2010 by the then Minister for Finance, the late Brian Lenihan. This figure arises solely from the programme for Government. No figure was included in the original memorandum of understanding. In the Dáil a week ago, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, stated:

We included a figure of €2 billion in the programme for Government and intend to realise that sum. However, we are obliged to negotiate with the troika on what we may do with the proceeds of the sale of State assets.

The April memorandum of understanding, signed by this Government, stated: "It is important that we make effective use of our state assets and, where appropriate, dispose of them to help reduce our government debt." That was what this Government voluntarily signed up to and it was not in the inherited agreement. It is important to make this point.

In a parliamentary question tabled during the week, Deputy Howlin referred to the interdepartmental group considering the best approach to the sale of shares in the ESB, which is working with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and stated: "A second group, to be led by my Department, has also been established to consider possible candidates for further assets sales." The Minister did not make any reference to what he had in mind when he spoke earlier.

I am amazed that I have to say this because I have great personal regard for the Minister, Deputy Howlin, but he was not candid or fully honest today. I tried to get his script but, coincidentally, he did not have one. We are amazed that on the subject of the sale of State assets, the Minister arrives in the Chamber without a script. I think he was ashamed of the script that he would have had to read out. I watched him closely on the monitor and he said that: "From the beginning when we took office, we have argued we want to apply a portion of the sales of those assets to investing in future jobs." That is his line. Is this true? It is not true because the Minister is saying one thing and doing another.

Another parliamentary question, answered by the Minister for Finance last night, refers to a matter I raised at the Committee of Public Accounts last week. The question is about where the money comes from to finance these jobs and the answer is the sale of State assets. I agree with that but it is a revelation to many people that on 25 July it was announced that €1.123 billion of the NPRF shareholding in Bank of Ireland was being disposed of. On 28 July, the Minister issued a directive to the NPRF directing it to transfer the proceeds from the sale of those shares within five working days to the Exchequer. That €1.123 billion is helping to reduce the State's asset and shareholding in Bank of Ireland, which I welcome. It is good that Bank of Ireland is in a position to pay back some of the State involvement. In his response to a parliamentary question last night, the Minister said that €233 million has been received to date and the €890 million is to be received this month, as confirmed by the NPRF at the Committee of Public Accounts meeting last Thursday. The Minister said

These net proceeds from the initial disposal have been classified as a capital receipt in the Exchequer account and they appear in Note 3 of the end-September Exchequer Statement which was published last week. These receipts benefit the Exchequer finances through reducing the Exchequer deficit.

Some €1.123 billion is available to the Government this month from the sale of State assets. Why does the Government not use this money for job creation instead of using it to reduce debt? Every time the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform speaks, he says he will use the proceeds of the sale of State assets to help create investment. While he is busy saying that, the Minister for Finance is busy issuing directives in writing to raid the NPRF of €1.123 billion to reduce Government debt. That was stated at the Committee of Public Accounts meeting the last week and was confirmed by the Minister. Why does the Minister need to sell shares in the ESB when €1.123 billion is going into the State coffers this month alone? It is not necessary and that is the answer to the question of where the funds come from.

AIB, in which this State has a 99% shareholding, appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in September and said that it would dispose of shares in the company to reduce the State involvement. That is a further sale of State assets and those funds should be used for the job creation fund. We should not be raiding the ESB, EirGrid and Bord Gáis for that purpose.

The Minister may find this a revolutionary theory but he should consider selling NAMA and the former Anglo Irish Bank now. The people running both these organisations believe that, over a period of ten years, they might make a profit on it. We should realise that profit rather than waiting ten years and paying consultants, accountants and the likes of Goldman Sachs. NAMA has a future value. It paid €30 billion for loans worth €71 billion, with a write-down of €58 billion. The loans worth €30 billion should be converted to cash as soon as possible rather than featherbedding a whole industry for the next ten years at the taxpayers' expense. The Government should bring forward the net present value of that future income stream and use the funds now.

Reference was made to Greece. If Greece receives a write-off of its debts, even if it is called burden sharing, there is no reason the Irish people cannot expect the same. The banks contributed to the problem and, in response, the Government is attacking the ESB, Bord Gáis and EirGrid. The Government is focusing on the wrong target and it should withdraw this crazy plan and come forward with a sensible plan.

I propose to share time with Deputy Tom Barry.

In theory, this debate is about the sale of State assets but in reality, it is about the sale of the country by Fianna Fáil. The Deputies and Ministers of the previous Government destroyed our country and put our economy into rack and ruin. They left us with over 440,000 people unemployed. The positive, constructive debate that the country wants is coming from this side and I wish Deputy Fleming and his colleagues would wake up and make a constructive commitment to our country for a change.

The Government should sell the banks — that is constructive.

Deputy Fleming and his colleagues already sold the country down the river. Tens of thousands of households are in serious debt because of the way Fianna Fáil mismanaged and abused the privilege of government. On this side of the House, we are not doing so and we are using the sale of some of our State assets, and in the case of the ESB a majority share in the company, to bring about more jobs. It is about renewing our country and getting investment in our infrastructure. That is what we are about and this does not just refer to the money we get from the sale of State assets. We must also find willing partners in the marketplace to invest in our infrastructure. This is about changing the way we do business rather than having the same old Fianna Fáil reaction and conservative thinking. We want to change and we are driving change. The NewERA authority, set up within the NTMA, is doing so. A chief executive has been appointed and, as we speak, protocols are being set up between NewERA and Departments in order to ensure we maximise the potential of our country, our Department and our resources in order to take people off the dole, give them hope and stop them taking the boat or the plane to the UK, New Zealand, Canada, the USA or wherever they can get a job. Not enough jobs are available here and it is about time we changed the debate. It is about time we focused on what we can do with assets. We can sell part of them to invest with other partners to create employment. We are focusing on transforming our economy, notwithstanding the crisis we are in. This is the most important time to do that. Given the economic situation, it has never been cheaper to invest in our infrastructure.

Significant investment is needed in our water infrastructure. Visiting local authorities, including in Waterford last week, see the problems that exist. We must upgrade our water infrastructure so that new businesses coming in — new employers coming to the Dublin area — will have proper and adequate supplies of water. We will create thousands of jobs in renewing the water infrastructure but we on this side of the House want a buy-in from everybody. We will have a full and proper debate on all of the issues with regard to NewERA and how we are going to change things.

I was in Northern Ireland recently and saw that there will be fibre-optic broadband connections to every area by the middle of next year. Northern Ireland is far ahead of us in its broadband infrastructure, although the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, is investing along with the private sector. We will ask what the private sector will do and we will add what is required to make a difference in this country so that we have adequate broadband connections for our people and our industries.

With regard to renewing our electricity grid, we have the best and most attractive wind energy potential, probably in the world but certainly in Europe. We must establish wind farms, both on sea and on land. We must change the way we do things. By using part of the money from the sale of State assets to invest in this infrastructure, we can create thousands of jobs. That is what this is all about. It is not a dry theoretical argument from the extreme left or extreme right. We are bringing about change and bringing people together by selling assets we have no need to hold on to, while retaining companies, such as the ESB, in State ownership to bring about the change that the former Government failed to achieve. The Government's target is to create at least 100,000 jobs over its term in office. NewERA is only a part of that, but it is an important part. We want change and we are going to ensure it happens.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I share the passion of the Minister about where we are going. Essentially, we are releasing the value of State assets. So be it. That is the situation we are in. We borrowed a lot of money in this country and, as much as we would like to apply haircuts, it is not always appropriate. I am in business myself, and the only haircut I want is when I go into town to get one. I do not want any person with whom I am doing business asking me to take less money than I am owed because he or she made bad investments and used bad judgment. If he or she cannot pay me, I cannot pay my staff. It comes down to the basics in the end.

We have been left in a situation in which we must realise the value of some of our assets. Like any business, our priority must be to stay trading. I am not sure why those in the Opposition do not understand this. If we do not stay trading, we are gone. It is much better to live to fight another day, and that is what this Government is trying to achieve. I have had to do this, along with many other business people in this country. We have had to sell things we did not want to sell but we are still around to trade. Ten years is a long time, and in ten years' time we will look back and say that we got through the bad times and did so properly.

The troika is in the country. Is it not amazing that we can actually say that? We do not have to pretend it is not here. I remember, only a short while ago, people trying to guess whether it was here. It is dealing with us in a constructive fashion. We are not hiding behind anything. According to a few articles I have read recently, it now considers us to be an example of how to get out of this mess, which is an achievement in itself. Of course everybody will not agree on the method of achieving it but the spirit is correct.

Investing in job creation is essential. As I looked around here today and saw the children in the Visitors Gallery, I thought about my own children, who are that age, and I hoped we could make this right, because what is at stake is their future. I doubt if they will care too much if we have sold a fraction of our State assets, as long as we are giving them a future in this country and allowing them to raise families as previous generations did before them. If we have to do that in order to keep them at home and give them a future, so be it.

Mistakes were made, as Deputy Fleming said. One thing mistakes have is consequences, and the consequences of the mistakes made in this country were massive. We cannot ignore these consequences, including increased unemployment and the mortgage and debt situation. It is atrocious. One of the difficulties is that the people who created this situation have not suffered enough. There are many people who should be ashamed of what they have done. Then again, there is no satisfaction in retribution; we need to move ahead.

As much as I would like to criticise NAMA, it is doing quite well. However, I would not sell all its assets immediately because to do so would crystallise losses. Let us sit it out and play the long game, as any business would, because as soon as one starts distress selling, one is gone. There is no more to lose. We have assets that will be worth a lot of money in time — maybe in five years or ten years — and we cannot just hand them over. In business, distress selling is the endgame, following which everything is gone.

The Government is selling portions of our State assets, although it will retain control of them. The semi-State bodies have proved their value over time and I am sure they will continue to do well. If we do sell them, so be it. In time, as the country recovers, we will develop other semi-State companies and move ahead. People must realise that all we are doing here is making sure we can trade profitably into the future. While the sale of assets may be repugnant to some, it is what happens in business every day of the week. At the moment, it is happening in a lot of small businesses, which are selling things they never would have considered selling before to make sure they can stay trading.

I commend the Minister for Finance on his approach. The way in which the Taoiseach, along with the Minister, is dealing with the troika must be recognised. From now, Europe will realise it is dealing with people who are straight and are not hiding in the shadows.

I sometimes wonder where we are and where we are going when I hear the remarks of the people with responsibility for governing this part of our island. Having said that, I welcome this debate, which Sinn Féin has been seeking since the publication of the McCarthy report last April. Already, as we debate this, the Government has declared its intention of selling off a stake in the ESB. This week, Fine Gael and the Labour Party are engaged in talks with the EU and IMF to decide how many other State assets to sell off and where the money will be spent. Sinn Féin is resolutely and firmly opposed to the sale of valuable State assets such as the ESB. I have heard the arguments from the advocates of these sales, who say it will boost the State's revenues. This is short-termist thinking. It is the same short-termist thinking that our absent friends from the Labour Party rejected in their election——

Excuse me, they are not absent.

Present and correct.

I know, but the Deputy is not a friend. Gabh mo leithscéal. I note the Deputy's presence. He may be interested to know what his party committed to. Its election manifesto states:

Labour is committed to [the] concept of public enterprise, and is determined to ensure that semi-state companies play a full role in the recovery of the Irish economy. Labour is opposed to short-termist privatisation of key state assets, such as Coillte or the energy networks.

It is amazing. That is what the party got a mandate to do, yet it is doing the opposite. Looking at the examples of Eircom and the destruction of the Irish sugar industry, we can see the effect of such an approach.

Presumably that was the motivation for the Labour Party's manifesto commitment and its reference to "short-termist privatisation".

It is a scandal that the Irish people do not have the right to make their own decisions about how to handle this crisis. Instead, our economic sovereignty has been handed over to the EU and the IMF. This Government did not negotiate that deal, but it is faithfully implementing it. It is adhering to the so-called austerity policy which serves to deepen the recession and has victimised citizens on low and middle incomes. One can see the effects of that in the numbers of patients on trolleys, chairs and even on the floors of accident and emergency departments. One can see the outcome in our classrooms where children are deprived of special needs assistants. One can see the consequences in our airports where thousands of young people are fleeing the country. The result of mounting job losses was clear in the attendance at Ireland's rugby games at the World Cup in New Zealand. Yet Fine Gael and the Labour Party plough ahead with their sleveen policies of recapitalising toxic banks and slashing public spending. On 2 November the Government will give €7 million to the toxic institution formerly known as Anglo Irish Bank.

Now we are presented with a plan to sell off State assets. The programme for Government contained a commitment to target up to €2 billion in sales of what were described as non-strategic State assets. However, the EU and the IMF are now demanding that this be increased to €5 billion in order to pay the debts of private bankers and speculators. It is beyond comprehension that the Government is claiming that praise from the troika for its efforts is an achievement in itself.

Deputies

It is.

Members opposite are very low achievers. They should be more ambitious not for themselves, but for the people of this island, particularly those who will suffer most if the Government persists in its current strategy.

Be positive, Gerry.

The Government must ask itself about the social consequences of all of this.

That would be job creation.

Ná bí ag cur isteach orm, a Aire Stáit, le do thoil. What will happen if there is no public airline, no public bus company, no public energy body, no public postal service and no public forestry body? The Government seems to know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

The Deputy's speech sounds very old. It reminds me of Joseph Stalin in 1922.

Deputy Adams should be allowed to speak without interruption.

It was famously said about the Labour Party that it went into the GPO with James Connolly and never came out again. If there is any purpose to the Labour Party being in government with Fine Gael, surely it is to stand up for the rights of ordinary workers. If there is any rationale for the party's role in this Administration, it should be as the voice of the marginalised and dispossessed. Instead, the Labour Party has fully embraced the right-wing privatisation agenda of Fine Gael. In fairness to that party, we know where Fine Gael stands on all of these issues.

We know where Deputy Adams stands on a range of issues.

A Deputy

Do not mention the North.

Members must allow Deputy Adams to continue without interruption.

However, the Labour Party sought an entirely separate mandate. I resent greatly the blatant ignorance of people who know nothing about the North — who could choose to educate themselves if they so wished — seeking to distract attention from their own shortcomings.

A Deputy

What about the £4 billion of cutbacks which the Deputy's party has endorsed in the North?

If there is a problem, Members opposite should look in the mirror. They should face up to their responsibility as members of the Government.

There is little regard for the social consequences of these Government policies. One need only walk into any working-class area or any neighbourhood where people would not previously have expected to find themselves economically vulnerable. Members opposite should ask themselves whether our people deserve better. It is our strong view that they do. Instead of nonsensical heckling about issues of which they know nothing, Government Members should offer an explanation as to how the ESB can be categorised as a non-strategic State asset.

Does the Deputy not understand the concept of a minority shareholding?

I ask the Minister of State to use his own time to persuade us in a constructive way of the merits of the Government proposal. Will he explain to us how relinquishing public control of An Bord Gáis will assist our economic recovery? We must seek a different way to the short-termism that has marked the performance of this Government. What is at stake is our very survival as an island nation.

Bord na Móna, An Bord Gáis and the ESB are profitable companies with a clear strategic importance. A partial sale will be the first step towards full privatisation, with inevitable job losses and increased costs for consumers. The consequences of the privatisation of critical infrastructure can be seen in the experience of our nearest neighbour. The sale of Royal Mail, for example, was such a disaster that it had to be returned to state ownership. The privatisation of British Rail came at enormous cost and was executed so poorly that some have argued it literally cost lives because there was no proper maintenance of the railway lines. In any sale of strategic State assets, companies will come in to strip assets and secure profits, not to invest in what should be a public service entitlement.

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Will the Acting Chairman allow me additional time to make up for the interruptions by Members opposite?

I can only allow the Deputy one more minute.

Eircom was asset stripped following privatisation and the State subsequently fell down the league table of investment in broadband roll-out. When critical infrastructure is in public hands, it can be deployed strategically to grow the economy.

There is much talk about celebrating the upcoming centenary of the 1916 Rising. The Proclamation states: "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible." The Government would be better to amend the Proclamation in line with its policies as opposed to engaging in rhetoric which would have the men and women of 1916 turning in their graves.

I propose to share time with Deputy Michael McCarthy.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. There has been much discussion about the concept of sovereignty, a word which has been regularly bandied about in recent years. "Sovereignty" has different meanings for different people. However, it is generally understood to refer to a state's ability to control its own destiny, have all its own resources at its disposal and control its future direction without undue regard to the requirements of external authorities. Unfortunately, this country has become indebted to such an extent that it has not been possible to proceed in the normal fashion. All the wringing of hands, tearing of hair and agonised appeals from the opposite side of the House in an attempt to tweak at the heart strings of hard-pressed citizens amounts to nothing but total and utter hypocrisy.

Everybody in this House well knows that the current desperate economic circumstances require desperate measures. These are measures which the Government takes no pleasure in implementing but which are not within the gift of the Government, on behalf of the people, to refuse to take. We are simply now victims of circumstances. The people did not cause this problem. Some modern economic thinkers knew what was happening, allowed it to happen and allowed it to get worse. Some people in the political arena who should have known better did not ask questions in time and allowed the situation to deteriorate. The disposal of State assets is not a desirable objective for anybody, but we are in a desperate situation.

Burning bondholders is not the way to go. One cannot go into a bank and tell the bank manager, "By the way, I intend to burn the bond. I intend not to repay you" and at the same time expect to have a budget position addressed over the next four, five or ten years. People must come into the real world. The reality is that nobody does business with people who talk like that and anybody who believes that confidence will be generated by people who talk like that must think again.

As a result of past experiences, and we are aware of the experiences throughout Europe, the United Kingdom and in the other part of this island in recent years, I am one of those people who would be very reluctant to dispose of State assets but we are in a desperate situation and what do we do? Do we do nothing? Do we stand idly by and allow matters to progress to a point where we will have default in some quarter? I am aware that is a desirable objective in some quarters but I do not believe it is a desirable objective. We must re-establish our credibility in a way never known previously and the proposed disposal of non-strategic State assets is not an erosion of our sovereignty, our nationalism or our ability to look after our own affairs. It is out of necessity and we should do as little as possible to achieve that but we must do what is required. If we do not do what is required we will be criticised further down the road, fail in our task and as a result pay an even higher price.

Now that the experiences of the past number of years are behind us, we should take whatever decisions are necessary to achieve the maximum in terms of targets to be achieved in the shortest possible time so as not to prolong indefinitely the agony and the burden on the people of this country, its institutions and its industry. To do so would be the greatest tragedy of all time.

We should be very careful what we dispose of. We should retain maximum collateral in the current position because collateral is hugely important, as anybody who borrows from a financial institution is aware. We should examine carefully the proposals announced so far with the intention of ensuring our credibility is restored in the European and international arenas and that we do not cause a prolonging of the difficulties and the burden on the people through failure to take action.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on such an important topic. This morning in the House the Minister, Deputy Howlin, while taking Leaders Questions, stated that the absolute objective of this sovereign Parliament is to win back economic sovereignty for this country. Every Member in this House is well aware of the difficulties facing this country. This country lost its economic sovereignty when the IMF came to town and that is the context in which anybody should make a comment on how we get out of that position. It is the objective of this Government to win back economic sovereignty for this country and in doing that, one of the first tasks of this Government was to renegotiate the EU-IMF deal. The Government did that, and with a good degree of success. It has extended the term and renegotiated the interest rate.

An absolute feature of that deal, which the previous Government signed us up to, was a sale of State assets. Nobody wants to sell State assets but implicit in the agreement was a condition that State assets would be sold and moneys accruing from that sale would be used to pay off the debt. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, have renegotiated that with the troika and they are now in a position where the proceeds from those sales or potential sales will go back into job creation. Job creation is the one element of Government policy that must and will dominate the reign of this Government because as long as this country has 450,000 people out of work the economic position will not improve. We must examine that and acknowledge the renegotiation of the EU-IMF deal and realise we are not in a position of our own making. We are in government to renew economic sovereignty. Achieving that will be difficult. Nobody wants to make decisions in this House that will impact on people who have suffered enough at the hands of the economic collapse but to win back economic sovereignty difficult decisions will have to be made, and rhetoric and economic lunacy from detractors only serves to ill-inform the entire debate.

Yesterday the Keane report on mortgage arrears marked a major milestone in terms of how we can address the problem of the thousands of people experiencing mortgage difficulty. Thousands of people find themselves in situations not of their own making. They have lost their jobs. They are now dependent on social welfare. Their incomes have been depleted. Their morale is gone and the banks want to take their houses from them but being in a position to initiate consultation and bring about a policy that addresses the problem is another aspect of Government policy that must be acknowledged.

Last month Olli Rehn stated that he thought the programme countries which sold assets should be allowed invest some of it in job creation. That emphasises my point that there has been a substantial tweaking of the deal to allow the Government reinvest moneys into job creation.

The establishment of NewERA, another significant pre-election commitment that is now Government policy, seeks to address the issue of unemployment. The strategic investment fund, another key pre-election commitment, is now being realised and will provide money for small and medium sized enterprises, get credit going and give back to small businesses the lifeblood of the availability of freely flowing credit.

We must remind ourselves that there are a number of positives about the economy because it is too easy to get lost in the negativity. There are indications that the economy is heading into a bright spot and it is borne out by recent data that shows exports hitting an all-time peak in the second quarter of the year while GDP, GNP and domestic demand all expanded in the same quarter.

I want to focus on the hypocrisy in the contribution of a previous speaker. I remind Deputy Adams that when he was an MP in West Belfast he represented an area with the highest rate of unemployment in Europe and what did he do? He abandoned it. He came down to Louth to stand for election in the Republic. That is the commitment that man has shown the unemployed in West Belfast. I will take no lectures from a party which has initiated legislation in the North to privatise ports. Private Members' business yesterday evening in this House was on the community and voluntary sector. I read into the record the number of jobs that party, with its coalition partners, the DUP, has cost voluntary and community sectors in the North of Ireland. It is engaged in austerity measures of £4 billion and its members have the temerity and cheek to come in here and start criticising Government at every possible juncture.

Reasoned, rational and constructive debate based on sound economic policies is what is required to deal with this issue. If we follow Sinn Féin economics the troika will abandon this country, there will not be anything in this country and we might as well give the key back to Brussels.

I am sharing time with Deputies Donnelly, O'Sullivan and Ross.

I listened to the entire debate and to what the Ministers said during debates on parliamentary questions and I refer to something that was stated several times. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, in particular admitted that the sale of State assets is not an ideal position. We know Fine Gael's position because in The Irish Times this day last year its finance spokesperson stated he was in favour of selling State assets, that Ireland could no longer pay for inefficient State monopolies and that 40,000 public sector jobs would have to be cut. There is no doubt about the Fine Gael position. The doubt is about the Labour Party position. I have listened to the only contributor from the Labour Party in addition to the Minister. It is all about attack and not about dealing with what is not ideal.

It is part of the debts.

The Deputy misinterpreted the Minister's remarks because he clarified this morning that there is no dispensation by the troika to reinvest this money in jobs. I heard the Minister say that the State would retain some State involvement, however, "some State involvement" is not the same as "owning". When challenged, he said also that this was not privatisation. Are we going to sell something and yet keep it? I would like to hear how one can do that.

Valuable assets are those that are worth selling. That is the difficulty. The ESB is a strategic asset and by breaking it into component parts, one brings people into the boardroom to strip the assets. I want to hear from the Labour Party, because every day its backbenchers are fulfilling a role of being either cheerleaders or hecklers. This is a significant issue for people of the left.

We will get our sovereignty back in time but we need to know the type of country we will inherit. We are taking dangerous short-term decisions on very important assets.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, said about an hour ago that we have to sell these assets as it was one of the conditions that came with the IMF money. This must be the most successful and costly con job in the history of the world. We, the Irish people bail out European financial institutions. The Europeans lend us the money to do it and in return we give them full control of our country. It is absolute madness.

In the short time I have, I will address the ideological debate on whether State organisations such as the ESB should be run or owned by the public sector or the private sector. On the left we have this sense that the private sector in somehow inherently bad and any private sector investment will cause cataclysmic failure across our country. The position of the right is that only the private sector can bring real efficiency, the public sector is inherently inefficient and wasteful and therefore should not be let run these businesses. There is evidence for both positions. We see clearly from the sale of Eircom that the private sector, unregulated and left to its own devices will strip assets and under invest in strategic infrastructure in the country. Let us look at the ESB which is publicly owned. The ESB provides us with some of the most expensive electricity in the country and in doing so takes that money and pays its workers some of the highest utility wages in the world. Members make the point that the ESB needs to be protected because it is profitable. It is profitable because it charges the people so much money. I would like us to move beyond this debate and consider what we are looking for from State assets. We are looking for value for money, high quality services and good jobs. Both the private sector and the public sector are capable of doing this. The debate on strategic and non-strategic assets is incorrect in my opinion. Our farms are pretty strategic, they are successfully privately run; our mobile telephone network is strategic and is successfully privately run. The ESB is strategic and in my opinion is not successfully run because it charges people too much for what it provides. We need to move beyond this. I would like to make three suggestions to the Government.

I do not think the Deputy will have time, in fairness to his colleagues.

First, do not let the IMF tell the Government what assets must be sold off. It is imposing a failed neoliberal agenda. Figure out where the value is and engage with the public and private sectors on who can provide the best value for money, the best quality of service and the best jobs for people.

The analogy of the family silver is often used when discussing State assets. If my family were starving I would certainly consider selling the family silver, if I had any, but I do not think of our State assets in terms of the family silver but of the bread and butter we need for our survival. I hope when we are discussing this matter, it will not be a knee jerk reaction looking for a quick fix solution and that future generations will be taken into account in any decisions that will be made. I do not believe the nation agrees with selling our State assets. The 2011 TASC Equality Survey shows one in three agreed with the privatisation of State assets and 42% were in strong disagreement. The director said that instead of merely focusing on potential once off yields, the privatisation debate needs to focus on the full costs and benefits to the public and the economy. The calculations must comprise the triple bottom line of economic, environment and social costs and benefits. The once off benefit from such sales must be balanced against risks, of which there are three: higher energy costs, lost income streams and reduced employment. Those risks are real. We do not want higher prices for essential services, we do not want more people to lose their jobs and we do not want to throw away potential income.

Mistakes were made by Eircom and the country lost out. We could do without a repetition. The wishes of the elected representatives on Dublin City Council are being ignored by the executive in order to privatise waste services. If privatisation goes ahead what type of regulation can there be with a cap on salaries and so on, or will the company be given carte blanche with the public ending up paying, as we see happening in Britain where private operators have abused the situation of privatisation?

I come to the two "C" words, Coillte and Corrib. We have made so many mistakes in both of these situations. With Corrib gas, we have thrown away approximately €8 billion of what is a valuable asset to the country. When we compare what the Nordic countries have gained from their natural resources, let us not give away the other hydrocarbon deposits in Rockall and the Porcupine Basin. If a multinational private company from outside this country buys our strategic assets, can they be trusted to have the best interests of this country at heart?

Some of this debate is somewhat sterile, old hat and irrelevant. It seems to me quite simple that the old ideologies and jargon should not be used. The very word privatisation is a pejorative term. It immediately says that you are handing over an asset which will make a profit on the backs of the staff who have worked very hard. It is a purely pragmatic decision on behalf of the Government. I accept that it does not want to sell any State assets. It would be preferable in many ways if it did not sell them, but those of us who are not naturally in favour of nationalisation would be very happy and are very happy to see the banks in the hands of the Government, because it was necessary. It was pragmatic and the only decision that could be made at the time. It is only ten years ago since we were selling banks rather than buying them, we were selling ICC and ACC and that might have been the right thing to do at the time, because we could raise a great deal of money for those banks and at the time it was fashionable to believe the State should have no business in the banks when they were prospering in that way. Now we have a situation where the private sector is being demonised in this debate. It is fair to say there is a lot wrong with what happens in the private sector, but we are seeing the battle between two almost irreconcilable forces. When the private sector buys it will be looking for one thing and one thing only, that is profit. It will not be looking to keep the staff there, to feather bed anybody, it will be looking for profit. The way a private company looks at a State asset is quite simple, it wants to generate profits from what it buys and will do what is necessary to get it. The reluctance on the part of people on this side and the Labour Party to selling any assets is because they see that those who come in to make that profit will lay off people, cut costs and damage the welfare of people who have lived well off the State assets for many years. That is an almost irreconcilable difficulty. There are arguments on both sides. The State assets that are for sale are feather bedded to some extent. The first piece of advice the Government should take, but it will not take, is that one does not sell a minority stake if one is looking for the maximum amount of money.

Anybody buying 25% of whatever part of the ESB is for sale will say he or she will be locked into a Government with a non-commercial mandate in a monopoly situation. That means people would be buying at a discount. The Government cannot possibly get the maximum value out of what it is selling because it is not selling enough to take the people who want to buy out of what they regard as the captivity of the State.

The sum of the parts of all the assets is greater than buying a little bit of them. In debates of this sort I appeal for people to look on the sale of State assets as pragmatic and consider them one by one. I am quite happy to see the State take over assets, such as happened with the banks, or sell them if it is the logical and absolutely necessary thing to do. I sympathise with the Government. It has to raise money. It is not a palatable situation. I wish it well but it is not going about it the right way because it is selling too little.

I wish to share time with Deputy John Paul Phelan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I come to this debate with a slightly different perspective from some of the comments. I do not make the case that the motivation for the consideration of the sale of the State assets is because we are forced into it or are being required to do so by the troika.

I, along with a number of colleagues in Fine Gael, spent a lot of time in opposition examining the basket of State assets. We tried to assess them, particularly those involved in energy and telecommunications and natural resources such as forestry. We tried to determine whether the current cluster of State assets was appropriate for a modern economy and if we needed to reconfigure them or add to or subtract from them, as appropriate. We considered whether we needed to sell some assets which were no longer required to be a monopoly or under State control and if we could realise some value from them in order to raise money which could then be invested in building new assets which the State needs to own for strategic reasons.

The philosophy of NewERA is not centred on raising money to pay off debt, rather it is about trying to assess what the State needs to own for strategic reasons. People will question the use of the word "strategic" in terms of how one defines it. The ESB includes an infrastructure to carry electricity in Ireland, whether it is a network or grid. It is a monopoly and it makes sense to keep it in State ownership and regulate it aggressively to make sure we get good value for people who use it.

In terms of the arguments on the generation of power and driving efficiencies, I have no hangups about public or private ownership. I do not approach the issue from an ideological point of view, rather I have a pragmatic point of view, namely, examining all our State assets, deciding what the economy needs now and what it will need in five or ten years' time and what makes sense to have under the control, management and regulation of the State and what can be done better by the private sector because of the competitive forces that can drive efficiencies and so on.

This is about reconfiguring, not selling off, State assets, in order that we can raise money to build new ones when and where it is appropriate, or add to them in the case of the electricity network. We need to have an honest conversation about what the State should be doing in the interests of shareholders, namely, the public, rather than in the interests of people currently working with State-owned companies. Ultimately, that is what this is about. The role of the ESB is to provide power safely, efficiently and consistently to the country and it has done some of that very well. There are questions in terms of some of the efficiencies in delivering electricity in as affordable and competitive a way, from a pricing point of view, as possible.

I am Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Following the publication of the McCarthy report, I asked Deloitte on a pro bono basis to examine the recommendations in terms of what assets should remain in State ownership and what would realise some value without compromising the strategic ownership position of the State.

The only asset worth anything substantial in my portfolio is Coillte. I have made no secret of the fact that we are considering whether we should realise some of its value while holding on to the strategic elements the State currently owns. I want to debunk a number of myths. Nobody is considering selling Coillte and all of the land it controls. It owns 7% of the land mass of Ireland and there is no question that the Government is considering the sale of any of that land.

We have made clear that where there is a public access value to the land, which is an important strategic value for the State, it would also be maintained. What is being considered is whether the State would sell one, two or three crops of commercial timber and realise the value now for a harvest period at some stage in the future. Commercial timber has a significant value internationally and there is no question of a crash sale without realising its full value. We are considering maintaining the strategic ownership of Coillte where it makes sense on a commercial and social basis.

I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this discussion. The points I want to make echo those made by the Minister, Deputy Coveney.

This discussion is not about the sale of parts of State assets, rather it is about changing the different companies and businesses in which the State is involved and realising some of the value that currently exists within them and setting up new enterprises for the State to be involved in in the future. In fairness to Sinn Féin, it has been consistent in its approach in the Twenty-six Counties. It might have a different attitude in Northern Ireland to the sale of State assets.

I listened to Deputy Fleming, whom I like and admire. However, the somersaults in logic he made while trying to convert the Fianna Fáil position from one of favouring the wholesale sale of State assets to being opposed to the sale of anything to do with the ESB, while at the same time stating we should put NAMA, Anglo Irish Bank and the banks back into private ownership, was mind blowing.

A constituent contacted me to tell me perhaps we could sell Fianna Fáil into private ownership but I do not think we would realise very much value for it.

We are too strategic.

While I like and admire Deputy Fleming, to get a lecture from Fianna Fáil on the disposal of State assets when it was responsible for the sale of Eircom, which was mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan and others, is nonsense. It was possibly the most unsuccessful privatisation in this country and perhaps anywhere in Europe. There was a cataclysmic failure to separate the network from the business, which has exacerbated our difficulties with broadband. Perhaps Deputy Fleming will have another opportunity to explain what he means when he refers to selling NAMA and Anglo Irish Bank into private ownership.

He also referred to selling our shares in the bank and using the money to create jobs. It will be used to repay the money borrowed by the previous Government to put into the banks in the first place. I salute the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister, Deputy Noonan. One of the most significant renegotiations they have done with the IMF and the ECB is ensuring whatever money we realise from the sale or partial sale of State assets can be reinvested in creating jobs.

That was the legacy they were left with in the deal negotiated less than a year ago and I congratulate them for ensuring the renegotiation has happened. It is also strange that members of the previous Government would criticise the selling off of part of our existing State assets to the tune of €2 billion when it was proposing to sell off up to €5 billion. That was Fianna Fáil's stated position until a number of months ago.

I agree with Deputy Stephen Donnelly's comments that the State must figure out where the value lies, and with Deputy Tom Barry's remarks on ensuring we do not sell assets at greatly decreased values. We must think strategically to ensure we get the greatest possible return under the proposals. I welcome the fresh thinking from the Government on this initiative and the idea that the semi-State sector is not static, that there are new areas where the State can get involved that will help people get back to work.

The Minister replied to a parliamentary question that the Department was considering possible candidates for further asset sales to inform further decisions. I agree with remarks on Coillte made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I fully understand the Fine Gael position but I cannot fathom the Labour Party's support for it, it has walked away from its people. I accept this is what Fine Gael is about, it is part of its rationale but it is not part of the Labour Party's psyche nor any of its voters. The Minister said on Coillte that the Government would sell future crops that will produce money down the road while getting the net present value.

We are not selling anything, we are looking at the idea.

Yes, but the Government is looking at assets that will generate revenue further down the road and getting their value now for the taxpayer to invest. I appeal to the Minister when he is looking at assets to look at the State's financial assets. We own 99% of AIB. The chief executive of the bank was before the Oireachtas committee recently and he said they want to dispose of some of it to gradually come back into private ownership. It should not be a State asset but it had to be nationalised. We will not go into that debate now.

We can if the Deputy wants to.

We can. Perhaps the Minister thinks we should not have nationalised it and it should have been closed down. If he wants to say that, that is fine.

There are shares to be sold in AIB and there are shares being sold in Bank of Ireland. If the sale of assets in such a bank is worth a lot to the Exchequer, could that money not be used to fund the economic development programme we all want to see, as opposed to selling off ESB assets?

The people in NAMA say over the next ten years, the agency will turn a profit. Precisely the same logic exists as exists for Coillte. If money is to be found in NAMA in the next ten years, why not get the net present value now for the benefit of the taxpayer and to create jobs, instead of waiting for the money to come in dribs and drabs over the next ten years? The same goes for Anglo Irish Bank. The proceeds from the sale of State assets should go to job creation.

The only decision the Government has made on the sale of any State assets, having taken months to ask each line Department to look in detail at the McCarthy recommendations, and beyond it to their own view so we could have an agenda for rational decisions in the interests of the State, is to sell a minority share-holding in ESB. The second decision we made was to ask a structure we set up to look at the value of a range of other State assets. A difficulty for my Department when bringing proposals to Government was to get a true market value of anything. There is no point debating the sale of an asset if we did not have the true market value. That is what we are trying to discern before we decide on anything else.

The Government decision excluded the financial sector deleveraging. That will happen in any event. Under the decision we have already made in March to restructure the banks, we put in a considerable amount of capital, considerably less than we feared, thankfully, after the recapitalisation process. We have also required the banks to do an extraordinary amount of deleveraging. The Anglo Irish Bank portfolio in the United States to the value of $10 billion is being deleveraged. However, if the Deputy thinks we will get value for the bank shares the State owns right now, he would be wrong. We must establish the two pillar banks, AIB and Bank of Ireland.

It is good that Bank of Ireland managed to secure considerable private sector investment during the summer, which lessened the need for additional capital from the State, so it has reduced the overall take of share-holding the State might have had in the bank. In the longer term, it is the Government's intention to have private sector banks. Neither party in Government, no matter what their traditions are, is of the view that having a State-owned banking sector is the best way for the economy to move forward.

There are two parallel processes. First there is the requirement in the Government decision to sell some State assets up the value of €2 billion in accordance with the programme for Government. We must deal with the troika and there will be questions about how we can use that money. The second is the process of restructuring the banking system, ensuring we have a functioning system that can lend into the economy and, in due course, get as much back for the State as possible when share values recover.

I am bemused at the Minister's answer that we would not realise the value of the State's shares in the banks at present. Is the Minister not aware that during the summer — this arose at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts and in a response to a question to the Minister for Finance last night — the Government sold €1.123 billion worth of Bank of Ireland shares and that the proceeds went to the National Pensions Reserve Fund? The Minister issued the letter at the end of July to authorise the NPRF to transfer the proceeds to the Exchequer. The Minister stated in his reply to the parliamentary questions that these receipts benefit the Exchequer's finances by reducing the Exchequer deficit. During the summer, €233 million was received and we were told at the meeting of the PAC last week that the balance, amounting to €890 million, is to be received this month. For the Minister to say we would not realise the value of the State's shares in Bank of Ireland patently ignores the fact that is precisely what the Government has been doing.

The Deputy is confused and I will explain to him in a moment.

I am not a bit confused because this is black and white. The Government claims the State cannot realise the value of its shares but it is doing the opposite. I am glad the Government got €1.123 billion and reduced the State share-holding in Bank of Ireland.

There was nothing in the memorandum of understanding we signed last December about using the proceeds of State assets. The memorandum of understanding the Government renegotiated in April said, "It is important that we make effective use of State assets and, where appropriate, dispose of them to help reduce our Government debt". That is the decision the Government made in March of this year. The money from the sale of State assets will go into the National Pension Reserve Fund not into the banks. Can the Government not ask the troika if, when it does dispose of State assets, the money can be used to stimulate economic growth?

Deputy Fleming has asked a number of important questions. Let me try to explain. We are dealing with the sale of State assets and the restructuring of the banking system as two distinct processes.

They are State assets.

Let me explain. I do not know if the Deputy wants to hear the explanation or not. The Government made a strategic decision to seek external funding for the banking system. I commend the officials of the Department of Finance, who did extraordinary work throughout the summer to get that private sector investment into the banks. The week before that strategic investment was made the commentary in the media was that it would be impossible to get private sector investment in the Irish banking system. It was an extraordinarily difficult negotiation because any potential investor wanted residual guarantees from the State. None was given. This was a pure investment. The week after the investment, the criticism was that we had given the shares away cheaply. It is very hard to get things right in the public view. We probably could have sold a bigger stakeholding at that stage, but we want to ensure that the residual State stakeholding gets best value.

One could argue that we should have held off and not sought private sector investment because we would not get best value for the State shareholding we relinquished. I would be happy to argue that point but I am sure the Minister for Finance will do so more effectively than I. It was extremely important, particularly at that moment, to show that it was possible to get private sector investment in the Irish banking system. That act of confidence has been extremely important in the international narrative of banking in this State. It does not mean we should release further State equity in the banking system now, if we believe the potential is for a much greater gain to the State in the medium term. That is the strategic thinking of the Government on banks shareholding.

Why not use those proceeds for job creation not for writing down debt?

We will do that as well.

If that is the Government's strategic thinking on State equity in the banks I urge the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to apply the same rationale to State assets. One of the problems with this debate has been that Deputies on the Government benches have talked about everything, even the price of tea in China, except State assets. With the exception of the Minister, who addressed the issue head-on——

Deputy McDonald was not here for many of the speeches, clearly.

I left the Chamber for only ten or 15 minutes, as can be verified.

No convincing rationale for these sell-offs has been presented. The Minister makes the point that the Government would not realise the value of bank shares at present, given market conditions. Let us take that at face value. What makes him think he will get a correct valuation for the proposed sale of State assets?

We are testing that now.

In his own mind, the Minister is working from a position of vulnerability and pressure. He has conceded that point. First, we have heard no compelling case for partial privatisation of the assets. Second, the Minister has conceded that he is taking this option from a position of weakness. Third, his colleagues on the Government backbenches believe the Government has sealed a deal with the troika to use the proceeds of privatisation for investment in jobs. Earlier in this debate, the Minister made it plain that is not the case.

Can I explain it again?

I ask the Minister to revisit all of that.

Can the Minister also address the issue of the potential private shareholding in the ESB and explain to the House why he believes it would not fundamentally alter the nature of the company, the way in which it operates and its commitment to the long-term needs and strategic interests of the State and its citizens?

I will try to be as expansive and as clear and open as I can be.

Negotiations are taking place between the troika and our officials today and will take place between the troika and the Minister for Finance and myself tomorrow. It may be poor strategy to hold negotiations in parallel with a debate in Parliament. Nevertheless, we should answer direct questions directly.

A view was expressed by the troika from the very beginning of our negotiations, when we first came into government, that any State assets had to be used to retire debt. We trenchantly put it on the agenda from the beginning that we wanted, in accordance with the NewERA proposals, to deleverage money. I am bemused by some comments from the Opposition backbenches which assume that there are endless capital resources available. Capital to invest in jobs is very scarce. If we can get some capital to invest in jobs it will be an extremely important component part of our economic strategy.

Deputy Fleming is correct when he says the actual signed memorandum did not move this issue on. We had an understanding with the troika, as the Taoiseach indicated to the House, that they would be willing to listen to proposals for sensible investment on a case-by-case basis. That position has hardened somewhat because the same conditionality has applied to other countries. I do not think I should be more expansive than that because I do not want to weaken my negotiating position. The Government is anxious that we would have the capacity to use some of the money we get from the sale of State assets to invest in jobs and growth.

I will deal with the other issues when I contribute again.

Given that the Government has not sealed that deal, the Minister needs to tell his backbenchers that it is not a done deal. They are under the impression that it is. The record of the House shows that.

At the beginning and end of this debate I made that clear.

The Minister has been very clear. I merely urge him to clarify matters with his party colleagues.

They can hear it as well as the Deputy can.

Whatever about the generalised understanding, was it not very unwise to make a concrete commitment for the sum of €2 billion before, at a very minimum, securing that understanding with the troika? I am opposed to what the Government is proposing to do. I think it is crazy. In the medium and long term it does not add up. However, even accepting the Government's rationale, the Minister has gone about matters in a most bizarre way. To concede that we would enter into a programme of privatisation and to concede a figure of €2 billion, with €5 billion echoing in his head from the troika, without having first had the conversation and hammered out the deal that some or all of the proceeds would go into job creation seems to be an inept approach.

The ESB has always been in a position to raise funds internationally and to upgrade and invest in its infrastructure. Can the Minister confirm that to the House, and to some of his party colleagues? They seek to ignore the view that this is a profitable company with international prestige and a borrowing capacity. They appear to view it as a type of shackle on the Exchequer. The Minister needs to make clear as this debate advances that that is not and never was the case.

I will take a brief question now from Deputy Wallace as we are running out of time.

I am also of the opinion that it is not good business to sell 25% of the ESB.

I did not say we would be selling 25% of it. No percentage has yet been agreed..

Will the Government sell off less than 50% of it?

We will be selling a minority stake.

Will the Government establish what it believes to be a fair price in this regard and will it, if that cannot be achieved, refuse to sell? It is not rocket science that this is not a good time to sell. It will be hard to get real value for a minority stake in the ESB, just as it is hard to get value in respect of anything in this country at this time. I know that only too well. Will the Government set a figure below which sale of this minority stake would not make sense?

I will try to respond to the questions asked by Deputies McDonald and Wallace. On the ESB's capacity to borrow, the ESB is a flagship company which has a great record. However, it, no less than any other State company, is impaired by the impairment of the sovereign, which casts a shadow on the capacity to borrow of each State company that is part of the State apparatus. I do not wish to say any more than that. It would be economically naive to think that impairment of the State would not have a consequence for State companies and their capacity to obtain investment funds, as they did previously when Ireland was AAA rated as a sovereign. That response is in respect of the point of view put forward by both Deputies.

As regards the process, I do not believe people have read the Government statement which states that it has decided in principle to sell a minority shareholding in the ESB to deleverage up to €2 billion. The Government will work to see if a portion of that can be used to invest in the next round of State jobs. We have set up a process to do this, which is co-chaired by the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. We are examining all the regulatory frameworks in this regard. There are regulatory issues involved because the decision of the Government to keep the ESB as an integrated entity requires the energy regulator to accept the proposal and permission from the European Commission. This has not yet been done. We will have all of this fundamental work completed and a report back to Government by end of November, including a proper valuation, regulatory framework and timing assessment.

In response to Deputy Wallace's specific question, let it be crystal clear that if we do not get value for any State asset we will not sell. There will be no fire sale of any asset. We are not time bound to get bad value for this country and taxpayer. That will not be done. I hope I have answered the Deputies' questions in regard to process. I reject the notion that we could have done things in another way. One first makes a decision in principle and then decides whether it is feasible to go that road. If ultimately we go a different road we will explain that to Members. We have not and will not sign any deal. Members will be aware that every decision made by this Government has been in the interests of taxpayers. We have come a long way from the abyss in which we found ourselves upon taking up office.

As it is now 1.25 p.m. I call on the Minister to make a statement in reply to the debate. The Minister has five minutes.

I thank all Deputies for their contributions. While I was in the House to hear most of them I had to leave on a couple of occasions to make some telephone calls.

By and large, people know the position of Government, which has been set out from the beginning. Reference was made to the Labour Party's position. The Labour Party is part of a Coalition Government that negotiated a framework and programme for Government. Not all of the views of the Labour Party or of Fine Gael are replicated in that programme for Government. It is an agreed programme, the fundamental driver of which is the economic regeneration of our country.

I will try now to respond to some of the welcome contributions made. I welcome the contributions of all Members whom I believe speak from the heart in terms of their strong views on these matters, as do I. Deputy Ó Cuív spoke about my personal reluctance in regard to what is being proposed. The Deputy is correct. In normal times, I would not do much of what I am being required to do in the job I have been given. However, these are not normal times. We need to make rational and good decisions using the cards we have been dealt and not the cards we wish we had, as often portrayed by some of the Deputies opposite.

I support Deputy Ó Cuív's analysis of the value of the State sector. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government supports State investment in jobs. There is no difficulty in that regard. Deputy McDonald also spoke of the success of the semi-State agencies and referred to McCarthy's wholesale sell-offs. There are no wholesale sell-offs. The only issue agreed in principle by this Government is the sale of a minority shareholding in one State company. It is invidious to compare this to other decisions such as the Eircom decision, which was to privatise an entire company. A majority shareholding in Eircom was sold off, as was the case in respect of the decision regarding Aer Lingus. The Government is determined that the majority of the strategic entity that is the ESB — hopefully on an integrated basis assuming the regulatory issues can be overcome — will be retained in State ownership.

Deputy Clare Daly said there will be no economic recovery without jobs, which is what is at the heart of our strategy. We need to have the wherewithal to create jobs. We must look around to see what tools are available to us as a State and to marshal those in the interests of job creation and growth. Deputy Daly used the phrase "your masters" as if to suggest it is only the Government that is under the constraint of the EU-ECB-IMF deal. We are all under that constraint. That yoke falls upon the shoulders of every Irish citizen, as bequeathed us by the previous Administration. We are determined to get out from under that yoke. We will step by step take the measures required to do that in the timeframe laid out. Deputy Boyd Barrett's position is not economically feasible, which I believe he knows in his heart.

Deputy Pringle spoke of using the ESB to roll out broadband. None of the measures of which the Deputy spoke is precluded. The State will continue to hold a majority shareholding in the ESB and will use it to the best economic advantage. Deputy Healy spoke about the introduction of a wealth tax in place of the sale of a minority shareholding in the ESB. I would like to see his specific proposals in that regard. As I have stated previously, I am offering to any Member of the House who has ideas, including on the opposite side, the resources of the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform to cost them. I am aware that Sinn Féin has already submitted many questions on this matter and we will, in so far as is possible, try to provide them with a detailed analysis.

Deputy Adams spoke about giving up State control and mentioned in particular Bord Gáis. No decision has been made on Bord Gáis. The only decision made relates to the sale of a minority shareholding in one State company, namely, the ESB. The State is not, and will not, give up its control of any strategic State asset. Deputy Ross spoke about the private sector. The Deputy is correct that we live in a free market economy. Some of the rhetoric we have heard is to the contrary. We live in a free market economy and depend on the free market and private sector to create the bulk of our jobs. We have a regulated market and significant and vibrant State sector which the Government wants to support. However, we want to use the resources of the semi-State agencies, as we look at the resources of the State in general, to one purpose now, namely, the economic regeneration of the nation.

I hope I have responded to many of the points made. I regret I missed Deputy Fleming's contribution. However, we will no doubt have many opportunities in the future to test out all of these matters. The Government and I are happy to have any decisions made stress tested in committees of the House or in plenary session in this Chamber.

Top
Share