Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like the previous speakers, I am very dubious about the prospect of selling off any of our energy facilities. It is notable that the Government is intent on offloading only those entities that are successful. Of course certain facilities are more attractive than others, but there must be a major concern that it is our most valuable assets that are being put up for sale. There will not be a shortage of interest in Bord Gáis because it is a very attractive prospect, but the Government will not realise its true value. It is very difficult to obtain full value for anything in the current market.

It is ironic to consider these proposals in the context of the crazy sums of money we borrowed from the markets and from the European Central Bank and IMF in order to rescue our failed banks. The people of this country will be paying for that rescue for many years. Now, however, they are effectively being asked to pay twice as the Government prepares to sell profitable State facilities like Bord Gáis in order to deal with the bank debt. People were sold a pig in a poke in being obliged to rescue failed banks; now they are being told that in order to meet the agreement with the troika we must sell off the best of our State assets because they are the easiest to sell. It is a disappointing strategy and leaves much to be desired.

People of a certain ideology are of the view that privatisation is good and that state management of services leads to inefficiencies and often a lack of profitability. This argument ignores the fact that state services are generally designed to serve the people. Where they are privatised, however, the priority is making money, which is as one would expect. Companies with shareholders have a legal obligation to those shareholders to maximise profits on an annual basis. This leaves little room, however, for the notion of the provision of essential services for the good of the citizenry.

A problem that has emerged in the business world in recent years is an excessive focus on short-term considerations. Next year does not matter so much; it is all about the next six months or three months. The pressure is on to turn over a profit in the short term or sell shares or dividends. That is a poor way to organise things and is one of the reasons we are facing so many problems at this time. There is an insufficient focus on the interests of the long term, as we have seen not just in Ireland but across the developed world in recent years. This lack of long-term vision and planning is part of the reason that the employment situation has deteriorated. It is also a factor in the collective failure to embrace a commitment to sustainable living. Environmental issues are put on the long finger because there is no short-term gain to be had in implementing them. There is insufficient concern about the serious damage we are doing to the planet as a consequence of the decisions we make today, because those consequences will not immediately be felt. It was bad enough when we had governments which could not see past the next election, which was a maximum of five years. The consequences of that in the area of planning and otherwise are clear to all of us. Now, however, we have businesses, and large corporations in particular, working to even shorter timescales. That is becoming a serious problem.

It is useful to consider how privatisation worked in Britain over the past 30 years. It is true that the manner in which some companies in that country were run in the 1980s, for example, was very poor and that productivity was very low. The reality, however, is that improvements in efficiency are associated with the arrival of competition, good management and better regulation, all of which are issues on which governments can take action. We do not have to give that authority to the private sector. For a private company to break even is not good enough. Its entire purpose is to turn a profit for its shareholders. By that philosophy, it is a bad idea for a state to allow its services to move into private hands because the primary concern thereafter will not be serving the people but almost exclusively making a profit.

Having said that, I absolutely agree that state companies should be run in a competitive fashion. Competition is healthy in any sector. If there is only one restaurant within two miles in any part of a town or city, there will be no pressure on it to improve its offering. If there are four or five within walking distance, on the other hand, each is under pressure to provide good food and good service. Competition is always good because it obliges service providers to operate more effectively if they are to survive. We need good management and regulation at State level in this country, and that can be achieved by the State itself. Bord Gáis is a positive asset of this country and we should retain it. It is something worth having because it is valuable to the people.

Another issue to consider is that it is very often the poorest people who are the most expensive to serve. How does one persuade a private company to take that on board? Although An Post is still in State hands, it is being run in a commercial fashion. I do not have a problem with that or with the company making money, but I would prefer to see a greater commitment to the needs of the people it is supposed to serve. In my local area the village of Duncormick is home to the last remaining post office in the parish, but not for long. It is due to close because it is not sufficiently profitable and An Post is of the view that it can do without it. The problem is that there are many people in the community who cannot do without it. In fact, its closure is hugely problematic for many of them, particularly older people who are not Internet savvy.

This company is advised by Citigroup and by Goodbody Corporate Finance. Indeed, all of the purchasers lined up are being advised by some of the main banks, the very banks that caused much of the crisis internationally in the first place. There is another company that is owned by Bahrain's banking sector, and a group in Singapore also.

Once an asset goes out of State control, anything can happen in terms of how our energy is produced and sold. For example, the company that owns British Gas has proposals to introduce nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. If we give it over, what is to stop the purchaser of Bord Gáis going down this road in the future? Once it is handed over, health and safety, the welfare of communities and all of these issues are secondary factors. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, living as near as one can to Sellafield, should know about the problems in that regard and the significant issues existing in Japan in this area of energy creation.

Bord Gáis is an important utility. It is an important service, it is an important employer and it is an important strategic business for the country. It is precisely the type of company that we should be developing and investing in, not hiving off to the highest bidder in order to pay debts that were never ours in the first place. It is the economics of the asylum, and Irish people will strenuously oppose the sale, as they should. The Minister should abandon it while he still has a chance.

See this speech in context