Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)

The Government argues that an asset is not strategic simply by virtue of the fact that the State holds it in ownership and it is correct to hold this view. However, the Government should also reflect on the fact that there is a reason the State is the shareholder in energy companies. This is because energy, by definition and in terms of security of supply to households and industry, the green agenda and reducing the carbon footprint, is a strategic interest of the State.

The Government maintains that it is taking these actions to release capital into the economy. This emphasis on the one third of the proceeds that it claims will be invested in jobs completely omits mention of the two thirds of the proceeds to be used for debt write-down. Those in government know as well as we do that the Government has alternative funding streams.

In the course of the debate Government Members have informed us that employees are delighted - in the case of Bord Gáis Energy "energised" - by the prospect of the sell-off of Bord Gáis Energy. This stands in marked contradiction to the public pronouncement of SIPTU president, Jack O'Connor, and Unite's Jimmy Kelly. Mr. Kelly stated "as things stand today any sale will be opposed using every means at our disposal". While the Government narrative is of a workforce more than happy to see the privatisation of the company for which they work, I suggest the reality on the ground is rather different.

The main plank of the Government's argument to justify these sell-offs lies not so much in the present as in the past. Ministers have recounted in great detail their inheritance as a Government. Today, the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, took us on a lengthy exposition of the last Administration, all of its bad decisions-----

See this speech in context