Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will reconsider the Programme for Government commitment to sell off commercial State assets taking into consideration that neither the IMF nor the EU have demanded the budgetary measure nor does the Memorandum of Understanding explicitly call for the privatisation of State assets. [35357/11]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The position as understood by the Deputy is not correct. While the programme for Government provides for the sale of non-strategic State assets to part fund investment in key networks of the economy under the NewERA programme, the disposal of State assets is also a requirement under the external funding programme agreed with the European institutions and the International Monetary Fund.

The memorandum of understanding governing the programme commits the Government to consider options for an ambitious programme of asset disposals, based on the programme for Government and the report of the review group on state assets and liabilities. A draft programme of asset disposals must be prepared and submitted to the EU-IMF by end of this year for discussion with the troika in advance of final decisions being taken on the elements to be pursued. A final decision on the programme to be pursued will be made by Government, taking into account the outcome of discussions with the troika on the amount of proceeds to be generated and also on the use to which these proceeds can be put. However, at this point, I have no intention of reconsidering the programme for Government commitment in this area.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a great pity. We have debated this matter before and I believe the Minister is making a great mistake and that his thinking is short term. Should the Government proceed in these matters it will amount to a fire sale of valuable strategic assets. I am consistently baffled that the Minister describes the disposal of a 10% share of the ESB as playing with a non-strategic asset.

The Government has been invited to consider options. No obligation has been placed on the Government in the memorandum of understanding. Here is the thing - we met the troika and we put our concerns to them on this specific issue. I put it to them directly, asking whether they were a part of a discussion or a decision making process in respect of the semi-State companies and the ESB in particular. They informed me that they were not party to such a discussion and that it was not for them to advise, instruct or guide the Government on the matter. They told me clearly that the decision was taken by Fine Gael and the Labour Party - by the Government - independently and irrespective of the troika. For the purposes of clarity, will the Minister tell me who was right and who was wrong because I have conflicting versions of events now?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am unsure what the question is but I will tell the Deputy what happened. The original memorandum of understanding signed by the previous Government in December 2010 contained the following commitment:

Building on the forthcoming report of the Review Group on State Assets and Liabilities...State authorities will consult with the Commission Services on the results of this assessment with a view to setting appropriate targets for the possible privatisation of state-owned assets.

When we met the troika, they demanded a quantum of €5 billion. This was the figure they discussed with us. We refused to accept any quantum because the programme agreed between the two parties in government stated that we would seek to raise from the sale of State assets a sum of up to €2 billion to re-invest in job creation in the next generation of State investments. The Deputy is correct; the troika did not engage with us in terms of what we should sell.

Bluntly, there is enough oversight of what we do already without inviting them to do more. We examined the McCarthy report independently and called on every line Department to give us advices on it and my Department studied these. The settled view of Government was to move away from what was agreed in the programme for Government, that is, to break up the ESB. That was what the Commission had been pushing for us to do for a long time. We are keen to keep the ESB as an integrated entity and instead sell a minority stakeholding.

The Deputy referred to a percentage. We have decided on no percentage yet. We were discussing a quantum of money and it is invidious to start discussing the value of any percentage until we test the market. I have no difficulty with the Deputy criticising me; I could get used to it. However, she should wait until we do something. The Deputy is inclined to criticise before the action. It was suggested that we were not going to get the minimum wage reversed but then we did so. Then it was suggested that we would not be able to reduce the interest rate but then we did so. Let us see the "when" before we discuss fire sales. There will be no fire sales. Our commitment is only to sell State assets when the market conditions are right, when we can get a decent return for the State and when we can get good value.