Vol. 768 No. 2
1Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number and extent to which staff who recently retired from the public service have been re-hired; if guidelines are in place regarding the duration of such contracts; if he will ensure that such contracts are for no longer than six months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28316/12]
Returns from across the public service indicate that approximately 7,900 public servants retired during the first three months of this year. The bulk of these retirements occurred prior to the ending of the grace period on 29 February. Information received to date by my Department, exclusive of the health sector, shows the number of re-engagements of retired civil and public servants to be approximately 70 so far in 2012. In addition, in the education sector some 254 secondary teachers and 67 primary teachers have been re-engaged in order to maintain front line services. These figures are small in comparison to the numbers who have retired.
The general policy is that staff should not be retained beyond retirement age and any re-engagement should be kept as limited as possible and should be for a very restricted period. Usually, the rehiring of retirees is related to completion of a specific task where their particular skill or experience is required. Situations can arise where a particular issue requires a short-term specialist input in order to complete a task. In many instances the most appropriate and cost-effective way of solving a short-term problem is to bring in someone who has worked in the area and understands the background. In the majority of cases these re-hires are very short-term and project specific and where the short-term nature would not justify the expense of any more formal selection process.
Where an officer who goes on pension is retained in the public service or is re-employed in the public service in a non-established capacity, the pension is abated. Such pensioners may never earn more than they would have if they had continued working. Where a person is re-engaged on a fee-paid basis, the abatement is applied to the fee itself, not the pension.
I thank the Minister for his response and appreciate the information he has provided. The main issue on which the people want a response in this regard concerns the biggest category in the public sector, health services, which employ approximately one third of all public servants. Somewhere along the line, the Minister, Deputy Reilly, must be brought into line with everything happening in the public service. He has obtained an exemption from the pay ceiling for hospital consultants and there are a couple of thousand hospital consultants earning more than the Taoiseach. That is wrong. Every Member of the Cabinet probably knows in his or her heart that this is wrong. How has the Minister for Health the ability to circumvent the pay ceilings? I see it as a discourtesy that the HSE or the Minister for Health can allow a situation where the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform must come into the Dáil today and say he will have to exclude the health services. They must be brought to heel at some stage.
We are not in opposition to the health services, but they are hiding under the radar. We know they have already gone over budget by €150 million in the first quarter and by July we will see hospital and bed closures. In the meantime, we will not have been informed of the cost of using agency staff. Agency nurses are being employed throughout the country and paying them costs more than rehiring nurses as allowed under the existing arrangement. Is there a legal limit on the number that can be rehired? The Minister has said the minimum number possible should be rehired. Is there a limit on the period of time in which these people can be rehired? Can the Minister establish a limit? Can he send out a circular to say the limit is six months and that nobody can be rehired after that?
This all sounds great in theory, but it is different when it comes down to the specifics. There are specialist areas where it is very difficult to get a replacement in the short term for somebody who opts out. The Deputy will be aware of the difficulty we had with regard to the Director of Corporate Enforcement. It was important that person stayed in his post until important work was concluded. However, I fully agree with the bulk of what Deputy Fleming has said. I am against the notion of rehiring people who have left and agree the terms for rehiring should be very restricted. I have had direct discussions with all my colleagues on this.
The Deputy made a specific point with regard to the health sector. I regret I do not have the specific numbers on the health area but, as the Deputy pointed out, they are the biggest numbers. In fairness to the Minister, everybody in the House knows there is a major job of work to do on restructuring the HSE and in fairness to the HSE, the sector has been very proactive in downsizing, in the past 12 months in particular as we saw from the report of the implementation body today. I am alert to the points made by Deputy Fleming. This is an issue on which we must keep a close scrutiny to ensure that when we are hiring, we are creating new positions for people new into employment and that people who retire on pensions are retired.
I am pleased the Minister agrees with me with regard to the health service, because we cannot come in here again the next time we have questions on public expenditure and still have a lacuna in terms of information on the health service. Will the Minister consider issuing a circular setting out a minimum period for which a person can be rehired temporarily? If the period is over six months, there is a case for hiring somebody new to do the job. I accept the need to rehire retirees where a project is near completion, where technology is involved and where it could take three to four months to hire staff with the relevant qualifications. However, there should be a limit on the period for which they can be rehired.
I will consider the Deputy's suggestion, but it is hard to be prescriptive for everybody, because there will be hard cases that will not be amenable to that situation. The situation does cause me concern and I have, for example, raised it directly with the Minister for Education and Skills. The notion of teachers retiring and then filling in for colleagues on sick days and maternity leave is wrong. I do not know whether we need to go a legal route on that, but it is one issue I want to bring to an end.
2Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide an update on his Department’s Budget 2013 preparations; and if he will confirm the budgetary process for the remainder of the year in advance of the Government’s December Budget 2013 expenditure announcements. [28671/12]
The medium-term fiscal statement, published in November last year, set out the Government's economic and budgetary assessment for the four year period 2012-15, including the estimated level of fiscal consolidation that is required to bring the general Government deficit below 3% of GDP by 2015, as the Government is committed to doing. The comprehensive expenditure report, published in December 2011, set out the Government's position as to how the aggregate expenditure would be split across individual Departments for each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Officials from all Departments are currently working to identify the appropriate policy measures to give effect to the medium-term budgetary adjustment while minimising the impact on public services. In this regard, I remind the Deputy that as part of the whole of year budgetary approach in the comprehensive expenditure report published, I wrote to all Oireachtas select committees in January of this year inviting them to engage actively with the relevant Departments during this year's Estimates process. Committees now have an opportunity to engage with the relevant Ministers with regard to next year's allocations. I am happy to report that a number of committees have informally indicated that they intend to do that. I also encourage all select committees to give serious consideration to this approach, as it will ensure a much wider engagement by Members of the Dáil in the annual Estimates process in advance of the allocations being agreed at Government level and not afterwards as has been traditional.
As to the wider budgetary process, I will consult closely with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, on arrangements for all budgetary and fiscal announcements for the remainder of the year. It is also the case that Ireland's budgetary and Estimates timetable is influenced to an increasing extent by requirements at a European level, which apply to all member states. The introduction of a European semester in 2011 has led to the publication of the annual Stability Programme update in April of each year setting out the parameters for the budgetary process. The European Council is currently finalising an overall package of economic governance reforms, including the so-called "six-pack" and "two-pack", which will have further implications for the budget and Estimates processes.
I thank the Minister for his response. What spurred me to raise this issue was a comment made by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, with whom the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform works in close collaboration. He led the public at large to understand that in the event of a "Yes" vote in the recent referendum, there would be an "easier" budget. In light of the Minister's response, could he clarify where the easing will come from? I have here a copy of the report to which he referred. I understand from what the Minister said that he intends to plough ahead, taking, for example, a further €3.7 million from community child care subvention - a sector that, as the Minister well knows, is under siege - in 2013, and taking a further €1.8 million from school completion projects. In the context of the broader budgetary mathematics these cutbacks, which were identified in the report, might seem like small sums, but they will have severe implications on the ground. What on earth was the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, on about when he mentioned an easier budget?
The Minister referred to the European semester and also to the six-pack, and he made reference to its limitations and its implications for our budgetary process. Could he shed more light on that?
There were a number of questions in Deputy McDonald's contribution. The target for next year is to reach a deficit of 7.5% of GDP. The quantum of money required to get to that is not defined. An estimate was published in the last fiscal review, but that needs to be refined because it takes into account inflation and growth, which are constantly under review, as well as external factors. In my earlier reply I invited the Deputy to involve herself in the detail with line Ministers across each Department, who have all the data with regard to the reduction required to meet the fiscal targets we have set and achieve a deficit of less than 3% of GDP by 2015. The Comprehensive Review of Expenditure contains all the measures that might contribute to that, some of which the Deputy may agree with but most of which she will not. We should engage in a democratic debate on these matters so that people's opinions at a political level are understood.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, logically made the point during the course of the referendum debate that the freedom we have to spend reserves such as the National Pensions Reserve Fund for stimulus purposes, which is our stated intention, in addition to other stimulus measures - I will deal with that in a separate question - would have been significantly affected had the people chosen to reject the stability treaty, because our chances of returning to the markets would have been damaged and we would have been required to hold on to as much money as we could to pay for day-to-day public expenditure. That is clearly what the Minister was saying.
With regard to the EU semester, there was a proposal in the two-pack to bring forward the budgetary process and align it across the European Union. The most recent discussions within the budgetary committee in Brussels have indicated that it is unlikely, in my judgment, to be agreed this year.
The Minister set out what he sees as the logic of the Minister for Finance's position. I take a contrary view; I think he was being rather deceptive in his clear articulation that there would be an easier budget after a "Yes" vote. Out of curiosity, did the Minister realise that the Minister for Finance was going to make those comments?
The target of 7.5% is contingent on a number of factors, not least growth. While we have figures and targets in the document produced by the Minister, they are a moveable feast. I appreciate that he wants a democratic debate, but for that to happen effectively we must know the precise parameters. Those of us on this side of the House must have confidence that whatever observations we make will be taken seriously and that the Minister is not simply attempting to institute a protracted process to take the heat out of what will be another very difficult budget - not difficult for the Minister, but difficult for the people on the receiving end.
I must disagree with the Deputy's last comment. It is very difficult to introduce a consolidation budget. I would be a much happier Minister if I were in Charlie McCreevy land, the good times were rolling and I could announce spending increases to rapturous applause in the House. That is not the lot that fell to me or to this unfortunate nation. We have to map our way out of a difficult economic situation.
I also disagree with the Deputy about the volume of information she has. She has the targets for each year, including the 8.6% deficit target we must reach this year, the 7.5% target for next year and the target of 2.9% of GDP by 2015. She has the Comprehensive Review of Expenditure documentation, which contains voluminous information from every line Department on all options for reducing expenditure. If there is anything outside of that which the Deputy wishes to put on the table, I would welcome it. The Deputy says she would be happy to do so if her suggestions were paid heed to. If they are constructive, that is fine, but if the approach is one of nihilism - the notion of cutting nothing and opposing all taxes-----
It is the Government that will not raise income tax.
-----there is no great benefit in it. I honestly believe that all Deputies are seriously thinking about the situation this country is facing. We are facing into another difficult budget - I will not gainsay that for a second. Deputies have seen the figures. The adjustments for next year are bigger than the adjustments we have imposed for this year. We need to consider all ideas in addressing this issue so that we can minimise the impact on citizens.
What did the Minister for Finance mean by an easier budget?
We must move on to the next question.
I need the Minister to answer the question, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
We are over time. I will come back to the Deputy.
It was a clear question.
3Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the changes he proposes to make to the funding and resourcing of individual TDs and political parties; the timeframe for implementation of these changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28686/12]
Aside from salaries and other allowances in the nature of pay, there are three main ways that funding and resourcing of individual Deputies and political parties are provided by the taxpayer: first, amounts provided to political parties and independent representatives by way of the party leader allowance; second, payments under the Electoral Acts; and third, allowances paid to Members of each House in respect of their duties as public representatives and in respect of free travelling and other facilities in accordance with Article 15.15 of the Constitution.
The party leader allowance is provided for in the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices) Act 1938, as amended by the Oireachtas (Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 2001. The allowance is paid to the parliamentary leader of a qualifying party in respect of expenses arising from the parliamentary activities of that party, including research. Payments are made in respect of members of the party elected to Dáil Éireann and elected or nominated to Seanad Éireann in the preceding general election or a subsequent by-election, or nominated to Seanad Éireann after the preceding general election. The conditions governing calculation of and entitlement to payment of the allowance are set out in the Act. The primary restriction on the use of the allowances in the Act is that they may not be used in respect of election expenses.
The legislation also provides that payments may be made to Members of Dáil Éireann who at the last preceding general election or a subsequent by-election were elected as Members other than as members of qualifying parties. Such qualifying Independent Deputies are entitled to an annual rate of €41,152. A similar provision in the Act provides for an annual payment of €23,383 for Independent Senators. I intend to bring proposals on these allowances to the Government shortly. Any changes proposed following that review will require primary legislation, which is currently being prepared.
Responsibility for the Electoral Acts is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.
Following a major review, a new system of expense allowances payable to Oireachtas Members was introduced in 2010. I have also reduced the number of pre-paid envelopes Members may receive. It is my intention to continue to ensure that the greatest value for money can be achieved for payments and expenses of this nature on an ongoing basis consistent with ensuring maximum efficiency and output from Members.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Finally, additional supports for the activities of Members of each House, including secretarial assistance, are provided directly to Members under the auspices of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Since 2004, the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission has been financed from the Central Fund. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission Act is amended every three years to provide the Oireachtas funding allocation for the following three years. The legislation is also amended as necessary to update finance, staffing, and governance procedures. It is envisaged that amending legislation will be enacted before the end of 2012.
The question encompassed resourcing and funding for all Deputies and political parties. The Minister did not get a chance to finish the reply. I will assume - he may correct me if I am wrong - that the changes being introduced are purely to leaders' allowances and allowances for Independent Deputies-----
-----and that there are no major changes proposed for the political parties. The Minister might clarify that in his reply.
We have a major opportunity to lead by example in two ways. We need radical cuts to political funding and funding for Deputies. I welcome the vouching of the leader's allowance. It is extraordinary that I am allowed unvouched payments and I do not think I should.
As the Minister will be aware, the resources provided to Independent Deputies are a fraction of those paid to Members who are in parties. For example, Independent Deputies receive one fourth of the amount paid to Fianna Fáil Deputies. When one adds the leader's allowance to the Exchequer funding, the funding per Deputy is several times higher in Opposition parties than it is for Independents, while Government parties receive approximately twice as much. Total expenditure on leaders' allowances is €4.8 million annually, based on 2011 figures, with an additional €4 million in Exchequer funding. Will the Minister consider bringing the total State funding for individual Deputies to the current level paid to Independent Deputies, that is, approximately €40,000 before reducing the amount by a further 10%? My calculations suggest that we would save the State between €7 million and €10 million if political funding to parties was at the level currently paid to Independent Deputies.
I would welcome a debate on the matter when I publish my suggestions. The Deputy is wrong on a couple of points, however. I will be reviewing all allowances, whether to political parties or to Independent Deputies.
That was a question.
I thought he was making an assumption.
The claim that Fianna Fáil Deputies are receiving multiples of what is paid to Independent Deputies is also incorrect. As an Independent, Deputy Donnelly personally receives €41,152. The first ten Fianna Fáil Deputies receive €71,000, which is less than twice that paid to Independent Deputies, the next 11 to 30 receive €57,000 each and above 30 the figure is €28,000. The idea behind this system is that the demands on a major Opposition party in terms of fronting Parliament and analysing major national events are different from the work of an Independent Deputy.
I am willing to consider these matters in the round. We have had extensive debates on the funding of politics by business and there was considerable pressure to exclude political donations of all kinds, even personal ones. From my perspective, I do not see a great difference between a cheque sent from Tony O'Reilly in a personal capacity and one from Independent News and Media. However, if one is to restrict private as well as public funding for political parties, how will the political system continue to operate? As we saw in the last referendum, there are significant external funders for debates in this country. I do not think that is healthy but we need to debate these issues.
The figures I provided are correct. The figures I received in a parliamentary question solely refer to the leader's allowance. The Minister cited the Electoral Acts, which give Fianna Fáil an additional €1.1 million. When one adds the leader's allowance to the funding provided through the Acts, public funding to political parties such as Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil is several times that paid to Independent Deputies on a per capita basis. I can provide the Minister with the figures.
I have them in front of me.
I welcome that he is going to review all forms of political funding because it needs to decrease across the board. As part of that review I ask that he consider providing funding directly to Members. There is nothing in the Constitution on political parties. Power, authority and the democratic mandate are vested in each of us as Members of Dáil Éireann. I suggest that a healthier system would involve the allocation of money to individual Deputies and Senators and, if they then chose to be a member of the Labour Party or other party, it would be up to them to contribute a portion of their resources. The Constitution does not vest the democratic mandate in parties.
I do not accept the Deputy's argument. Obviously we come from very different traditions. I joined a political party to drive the agenda to which I subscribe. We debate democratically within the party and attend national conferences which provide a space for input from our membership. I do not come to this House as a sole trader. I come with a political agenda and I believe Deputies Fleming and McDonald are involved in politics on the same basis. The essence of our democratic system is not that we ask an array of individuals to represent us but that Governments set out manifestos that will be implemented, sometimes after negotiations on a programme for Government. The Deputy's proposal would fracture the basis of our political system and I, for one, am not keen to pursue it.
4Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will exclude Bord Gáis from the list of State assets to be sold in order to protect the parent company of Irish Water from the privatisation process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28657/12]
I wish to clarify for the Deputy that the Government has no intention of disposing of Bord Gáis Éireann. The State asset disposal programme that I announced last February refers only to Bord Gáis Éireann's energy generation and supply business. I made it clear at the time that the rest of the group, which consists of the gas transmission and distribution systems and the two gas interconnectors, will remain in State ownership.
In deciding that the new Irish Water utility will be an independent State-owned subsidiary of the group, the Government's intention was that a number of key synergies would be achieved between the gas and the water utilities core network functions, such as operating in a regulated environment, network management, metering and utility operation systems. These core functions will not be impacted by the sale of Bord Gáis Energy, which is a separate business within the group and which operates under a separate management team. I do not, therefore, propose to exclude Bord Gáis Energy from the disposal programme.
I disagree with the Minister's perspective on this issue. I accept it is not the Minister's intention to privatise Bord Gáis completely and that he proposes to give it a new business through a subsidiary which it will own and control. This subsidiary, Irish Water, will be responsible for the supply of water and sewerage services throughout the country. The people of Ireland will not be happy and difficulties with non-payment will ensue if they believe he is giving control of their water to a company which is being partially privatised. They will be afraid that he may plan to sell off Irish Water.
I will attempt to allay the Deputy's fears. It is the Government's firm intention to establish a publicly-owned water utility called Irish Water. It will be retained in State ownership. That will be enshrined in legislation and, while we have no control over future Governments, as long as my party is a member of this Government no consideration will be given to the sale of Irish Water. That is the unanimous decision of both parties in Government and it is our firm commitment.
Bord Gáis Éireann was established to distribute natural gas. It built up other business but these are not related to its core functions. Selling off some of the company's capacity to generate electricity in order to increase competition in the market and avoid domination by two publicly owned utilities is a pro-energy and pro-business stance which the Deputy opposite would normally be inclined to support.
On the sale of State assets, I judge each case on its merits. I do not have a philosophical objection, nor am I am supporter of a philosophy on it. The Minister is saying he is selling key State assets that are not part of the core of Bord Gáis. Irish Water is not part of the core of Bord Gáis and people feel it will fall into the same category. I accept the Minister means what he says but it accounts for nothing in the real world. The view that the Minister would not like to see something happen is not a legal commitment.
Perhaps the Deputy did not hear. We are writing it into the law of the land so it is a legal commitment. Every Parliament is sovereign so we have no control over what a future Parliament will do. As far as this Parliament and this Government is concerned, the utility will be a wholly-owned State utility. Most parties in the House and most Independents see it as the correct course. I do not see any push to have it privatised because the experience of privatised water in the UK is not good.
I am not enthusiastic about the general principle of selling State assets. We made a decision about what we are putting on the market. These are not strategic assets and will allow the leveraging of money to invest in new jobs. In Irish Water, we are creating the biggest new State utility since the ESB.
5Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the stage at which his privatisation programme is currently at and taking into account the job losses that arose from the previous privatisation and part privatisation of State assets, if he has undertaken an impact assessment study of the likely job losses that will arise from the sale of State assets; and if he has conducted a study of the way such losses would compare with jobs alleged to be created with the proceeds. [28689/12]
I am pleased to report that the State asset disposal programme has made significant progress since I announced its content last February. The respective inter-departmental steering groups established at that time to prepare the assets for disposal have examined comprehensive financial reports by NewERA on Bord Gáis Energy, BGE, and Coillte and work is also proceeding on identifying the electricity generation assets of ESB to be included in the sale programme.
Under the EU-ECB-IMF funding programme, the Government remains committed to outlining in detail for the troika, by the end of this month, the specific regulatory, legislative, corporate governance and financial reforms that need to be taken in 2012 to allow for the State asset disposal programme to proceed in 2013. A calendar with indicative timelines for sales will be set out. The issues requiring resolution having already been identified by the end of the first quarter and we published that in the report of the last troika visit. Work is continuing now in the relevant Departments and agencies on considering how they should be addressed in order to facilitate the launch of sale transactions in 2013.
With regard to the second part of the Deputy's question on job losses, the inter-departmental steering groups mentioned earlier are charged, inter alia, with identifying any implications for employment that arise from the asset sales in question. I do not necessarily accept the implication in the Deputy’s question that job losses will be inevitable. Part of the receipts from the sale of assets will be retained for reinvestment. The sale of certain business units of State companies may offer the prospect of access to significant new capital to grow these businesses, which might not otherwise be available given the current position in capital markets. The BGE sale and the proposed divestment of some of the ESB’s non-strategic power generation assets also presents an opportunity to achieve wider economic benefits by introducing new players into the Irish market, thereby leading to increased competition, which should, hopefully, increase efficiency, drive down costs and lead to reduced prices to consumers and businesses.
Any progress on the privatisation of State-owned assets, meaning assets owned by the people, is not something to be pleased about. I ask the Minister to recognise the serious implications for the protection of jobs in the privatisation process. In an appalling development in 2009, 1,300 high-quality aircraft engine maintenance jobs were lost mainly at Dublin Airport when a multinational company, SR Technics, closed down peremptorily. Does the Minister accept this happened because of the privatisation of Team Aer Lingus? Does he recognise that vulture capitalists will move in to take ready-made assets when they are only interested in private profit, not the jobs and security of employment of Irish people? It is repulsive to a majority of people in this country that the troika, representing the interests of the financial markets and bondholders, dictates to this State - and that the dictation is acceded to by the Government - that public assets are sold off in this way rather than developed and invested in to create tens of thousands of jobs.
Is the report in The Irish Times today, that the troika is demanding Aer Lingus to be totally privatised at the beginning of next year, accurate?
For many years, I have known Deputy Higgins's view on State industry and private industry. He regards one as all good and the other as all bad. I do not have the same philosophical view and I believe there is room for a dynamic State sector, which we need to protect and enhance, but not everything in the State sector is, by definition, good. Neither is everything in the private sector, by definition, bad. I will provide Deputy Higgins with a concrete example from my constituency. The State-owned company, ESB, sold Great Island power station to a private company called Endesa. From being a mothballed generating station owned by the State, it is now a facility in which the company invested €300 million and it is bringing natural gas to my county for the first time. It has the potential to create many jobs. We want to be smart in terms of utilising resources and looking to the next generation of State companies, including Irish Water, to generate jobs and provide the infrastructure for further jobs. The sale of BGE grew up from a company designed to distribute gas and built up a generating capacity from wind farms to gas power generating stations.
To sell off the generating element of the company and create real competition with a State company will test the mettle of the ESB. It is well fit for purpose and it will be good for the business and private consumers.
Does the Minister not realise preparation for the privatisation of the electricity generation has been going on for years? So-called competition has been a farcical joke, with the price of electricity increased by the regulator so that venture capitalists are tempted into the market by increased profits to create competition. What kind of a joke of a way is that to carry on?
The Minister did not answer me with regard to Aer Lingus. Is the troika pressing for its privatisation?
The Minister has not carried out an impact study comparing what jobs could be lost, as in many privatised industries, and the damage done. The Telecom Éireann privatisation did major damage to investment potential in this country as venture capitalists asset stripped for private profit. What percentage of funds will the troika allow to be invested if the Government sells it off? I will oppose it at every hand's turn.
I agree with much of what the Deputy said. I fundamentally disagree with the way Eircom was privatised. It was a strategic company providing a strategic service. That is why we are not selling off any of the strategic distribution lines of gas or electricity in this country. We are determined not to make those awful mistakes. I also agree with the point of Deputy Higgins in respect of artificial competition. The notion that energy competition is one State company being forced to keep high prices while another State company takes its business is a nonsense. I agree with Deputy Higgins and that is why we need real competition, with a State company unleashed to compete in a real market with, hopefully, an external player that will drive down the cost of energy for all consumers. That is what we want to achieve, without being captured by any ideology of the past.
There is no pressure on us on the sale deadline for Aer Lingus. We will only sell State assets if there is a fair market price. This is also true of BGE. If circumstances are not opportune when we get to the market, that will be my recommendation.
