I will conclude my remarks as quickly as possible. As to the future of the ICC, we should not engage in a hasty sale. Senator Quinn said it should be sold for whatever price can be obtained but we do not need to sell. The State has a bad record in coming to the market to sell assets with open pockets. If we were to have the land bank, owned by the IDA, which had a "for sale" sign put on it by a previous Administration, the asset value of the IDA today would be enormous. Assets such as the Great Southern Hotel were sold for a song because of the view that the State should not be involved in the market. They were sold for way below their market price or their long or mediumterm market price. I do not agree the bank should be sold but I agree it needs a proper strategic future and I have asked it to make proposals on that. There will be another debate on that in this House and I confidentially expect to be in a position to initiate and respond to it, notwithstanding Senator Ross's good wishes.
The bank has never recorded a loss, continues to return small modest dividends and has provided a service to many business people who, by their own admission, would not have been able to obatain a facility elsewhere. If the bank were a charity, it would not be in a position to continue making profits. In the 60 or more years since it was formed in 1933, it has consistently made either real and intagible profits or has not reported a loss. It is not in the business of charity but it has provided a required service.
As we move to a new future of the single currency and an increasingly integrated internal market, I am not clear what is the best form of lever or instrument the State should have to correct market distortions or failures. As deputy leader of the Labour Party, as a participant member of the Party of European Socialists and on behalf of the constituencies I represent, I would, at my peril, forego the possibility of not having any lever whatsoever. It may will be that the levers we will need for the new internal market conditions will be different to those we currently have. Therefore, we have an obligation to change them and, possibly, to discard some of them and create new ones. This brings us back to the ideological fault line in the European Union between those who believe the market, if left alone, will solve all problems and those, like me, who say the market will solve some problems wonderfully but not others and, given the choice in those cases, will go in an anti-social direction. For that reason, the power and possibility to intervene creatively and intelligently must be retained. If there has been a conversion among the left in Europe, it has been to the recognition that market forces must be understood and respected but not necessarily idealised.