Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

Some of this debate is somewhat sterile, old hat and irrelevant. It seems to me quite simple that the old ideologies and the 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.

See this speech in context