Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy, Richard Boyd Barrett, Shane Ross and Clare Daly.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not convinced selling State assets is a good idea, especially at the current time. The Government has assured us it will get value for money but it is obvious that getting a proper price for anything is practically impossible. The short-term benefit will be outweighed by any long-term damage. There are many reasons that a state should retain some control over its assets.

I was surprised to see how many State companies have been privatised. The current list stands at ten. It has been a problem in Ireland, England and Europe. Many public assets in Europe have been sold off, which has left countries far less capable of dealing with unemployment now that we are in a recession. I do not want to compare everything to China, but it was able to deal with the crisis. It was able to control its banks and tell them what to do in order to maintain funding. It had far more financial and industrial leverage to drive economic growth because it had such control over its state organisations.

It is a pity we do not have more control of ours. I understand that Government has signed up to a deal by whereby it is obliged to sell something. I do not think there is much economic logic to it. I would be suspicious that the aims of the troika are more neo-liberal than economic, given that we will not get much of a price for our assets.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We all know we had a privatisation which went very badly wrong, namely, the privatisation of Eircom. Not only has it been sold and resold, but the major disadvantage was the loss of the ability to roll out broadband. We have lagged behind and it has been a serious disadvantage in terms of developing the country.

When we met the troika it told us it would not force the country into a fire sale. The Government said, in its most recent announcement, that it is not what it intends to do, but is very difficult to see how that can happen in the context of the economic environment not just in this country, but across Europe.

There was a very good idea in the Labour Party manifesto, namely forestry. It stated:

Labour recognises the importance of forestry as a source of employment, a source of renewable energy and a public amenity and a means of reducing the national carbon footprint. Labour opposes privatisation of Coillte and the sale of publicly owned forests. Labour will set a planting target of 10,000 ha per annum and will work with stakeholders to agree a sustainable funding model to achieve this aim.

It is an awful pity that vision was abandoned. The sale of the proceeds of Coillte land will happen. It is not a case of planting land this year and selling a crop. It takes decades for trees to mature. I have serious concerns that we are selling assets like Coillte just to get to the bottom line rather than for any good, solid reason.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to use this opportunity to appeal to members of the public to resist with every fibre of their being the agenda to begin to sell our vital State assets in order to pay off gambling debts of bankers and speculators. It is one of the most obscene aspects of the austerity agenda. The obscenity and madness of it is summed up in the consideration of the sale of Coillte.

It has 7% of the land mass of the country. Any State enterprise with 7% of the land mass of the country and which presides over a huge chunk of our natural heritage, vital public amenities and something that could produce employment, revenue and wealth for the State is, by any definition, a vital strategic asset. How could it be defined as anything else?

The idea of a private company owning that sums up the image that people will be charged to visit our forests and that private companies will cut down trees and deforest the country to sell trees for cash. The real obscenity comes when one considers what private companies might bid for Coillte if it comes up for the sale. The chairman of the International Forestry Fund is former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. It is a subsidiary of Helvetia Wealth, a Swiss wealth asset management company, in effect a money-laundering company for the super wealthy.

These are the sort of people who could potentially own 7% of the land mass of this country. It is an obscenity and has to be resisted. How the Labour Party Government could even contemplate selling it or other vital State assets is beyond me.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I always find it very difficult to debate this subject because of the strong ideological positions taken on either side which are unrealistic and very unfair. The right attitude to State assets is a pragmatic one. A lot of the so-called assets are not assets at all, rather they are liabilities. The Government is very limited in its options and what it can sell. If it decided to sell CIE, a so-called State asset, it would probably not get anything at all because it is a highly subsidised organisation. If it wanted to sell the DAA it would have serious difficulties because it is a highly indebted organisation.

The options open to the Government are very slim. I wish those who table motions and amendments on this would not table those which exclude all options. I note the Sinn Féin motion rejects the sale of State assets. I cannot see any possible reasons for not selling off Aer Lingus because a 25% holding is of so little value to us. The difficulty would be the ability of the Government to get a reasonable price for it because a buyer would only be able to purchase a 25% shareholding, if it is a trade sale, which would give it very little clout and it would be overwhelmed by the other shareholders. The Government would be lucky to get what it would call a fair price for Aer Lingus.

The Government is wrong to set up a new quango, NewERA, to look after the sale of State assets. It was unnecessary, put people in charge who have very little expertise and is a negation of its responsibility.

This is an emotive subject for workers and shareholders. I appeal to people not to take extreme views but to look at this on a case-by-case basis and be prepared to sell State assets at reasonable prices.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The reason the Government should not sell a 25% stake in Aer Lingus is that it would realise a pittance for it. Bearing in mind the Government's share and the 15% staff shareholding, one realises the State would lose a vital strategic link and connectivity with Heathrow and other areas. The company has been in existence for decades and has provided secure, permanent, pensionable employment and a good service.

The Labour Party has some neck to posit the sale of State assets as some great move towards job creation. What an absolute betrayal of the people who voted for it. It told them it would protect valuable State concerns although the dogs on the street know that every privatisation inevitably results in job losses. We saw this with Eircom, in respect of which at least 7,000 more jobs were lost. Some 3,500 jobs were lost in Aer Lingus since its part and majority privatisation. We should consider the valuable job creation prospects that would exist if we were to retain the semi-State industries in our control.

We must consider this discussion against the backdrop of the collapse of private sector investment in our economy. This collapse has amounted to €30 billion since 2007. Where will the jobs come from, bearing in mind that the State could be the main mover in job creation? Rather than hiving off parts of our assets, why are we not investing in research, wind and wave energy? The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources told us 10,000 jobs could be created in the wind and wave energy sectors. Where is this investment? Why is the State not investing in the semi-State concerns?

It is inevitable that workers in the companies in question will resist any attempts to sell off vital assets. They will be supported by the public. I ask that the agenda put forward by the United Left Alliance be accepted and that the workers be supported.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two entirely different realities obtaining in this Chamber. The last speaker echoed views expressed in and outside the House last night to the effect that we have the option not to sell anything. One wonders about the point of going through-----

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was part of the Minister's election platform.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was not. One wonders about the point of going through all of what we have been through over the past three and a half years when people are stating in the House that we should not sell any State assets and instead invest in wind energy, for example. Where are we to get the funds to invest in wind energy? There has been a great deal of wind blowing around the Chamber last night and tonight, and there is very little by way of prescription.

These are parlous times for our country and the European Union. We could have an interesting debate on allocating blame for the crisis into which we have been plunged, but such a debate, while it may be useful in terms of identifying lessons to be learned, is of little value in the here and now or in pointing the way to economic recovery. The difference between the Government and Opposition in this debate is that the former is focused on solutions designed to help our economic recovery while Opposition speakers are focused on mischief-making, mock indignation and distortion of the facts in the hope it will strike a chord with a section of the electorate.

The Sinn Féin motion's principal proposer, Deputy Martin Ferris, allows himself to be distracted from the purpose at hand in his enthusiasm to have a go at the Labour Party. It seems the Sinn Féin hierarchy is satisfied there is no point kicking Fianna Fáil as there is scarcely any sign of life from that party at all. Therefore, Sinn Féin directs all its ink at the Labour Party. Just in case any of Deputy Ferris's ink jets missed their target, half a dozen colleagues weighed in to misrepresent the position of the Labour Party before and since the general election. I made plain in June 2010, when the Fianna Fáil-led Government established the McCarthy group, that given the crisis inflicted on us the Labour Party was prepared to examine each case on its merits but was not in favour of the disposal of strategic State assets. That was our position after the general election and it remains so. That is why the programme for Government committed the new Government to the sale of non-strategic assets to a value of €2 billion.

Why have we now agreed a figure of €3 billion with the troika? This is essentially for two reasons. First, we will get €1 billion back to reinvest in order to realise the productive potential of the economy. Second, it was the best that we could negotiate against a backdrop of an expectation on the part of the troika arising from the original memorandum of understanding that the assets disposal programme would raise €5 billion.

When the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government put our country into hock, it was in a state of complete dysfunction. Not a single Minister was prepared to lead the negotiations with the IMF, European Union and European Central Bank. They emerged, however, to sign away the country's economic sovereignty. On 29 September 2008, they signed away the deeds of this country in the most reckless gamble by any government in any modern democratic state. At the very first engagement between the troika and the new Government, it was made plain that the troika's expectation was that €5 billion in assets would be sold off and that the proceeds would be used exclusively to write down debt. No figure was used in the original memorandum of understanding and, I presume, this is because the general election was imminent.

Gradually, the new Government has persuaded the troika that asset sales to the scale of €5 billion were unrealistic in the lifetime of the programme and, more important, that it is in the best interest of the revival of our economy that we be free to reinvest a significant proportion of the proceeds. Against that background, the outcome announced by my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, is one hell of an improvement.

It was sad to listen to the new leader of Fianna Fáil, who has the distinction of being one of the 15 men and women who surrendered or economic sovereignty, arguing on "Morning Ireland" that the original memorandum of understanding caused the establishment of the McCarthy group in order to improve the efficiency of the gas and electricity sector. One would have thought that the history was too recent for Deputy Martin to forget that the Government of which he was at least a pavilion member had set up the McCarthy group five months before what he calls the original memorandum of understanding was issued.

Further, the very first of the terms of reference given to the McCarthy group in June 2010, when no bailout was anticipated, was to consider the potential for asset disposals in the public sector, including commercial State bodies, in view of the indebtedness of the State. That was the mandate given to Mr. Colm McCarthy and his group. There is something pathetic about our now having to listen to Deputy Martin attempt to rewrite history, Deputy Ó Cuív signal that Fianna Fáil is opposed to the sale of State assets and Deputy Fleming pretend, as he did last night, that Fianna Fáil was only selling State assets in the belief that "Some 100% of the sale of any State asset should be used for job creation."

How can a Member of this House make such a claim when the record of the terms of reference given by his Government to the Review Group on State Assets and Liabilities is so clear? The only conclusion that one can reach is that the new Fianna Fáil is like the old Fianna Fáil; when in trouble it reaches for the Bart Simpson defence. In the case of Sinn Féin, it is a case of continuing to hope that circumstances will get worse in the hope that, for it, circumstances will get better. It is a case of its continuing to forecast new horrors and hoping that nobody will recall the forecasts of doom that did not materialise. One should remember that Deputy Mary Lou McDonald forecasted there would be no referendum. She forecasted that the Government would not reverse the cut to the minimum wage and that inspecting septic tanks would cause fear to stalk the land.

I recall Deputy McDonald telling us that the Government would break up the ESB and that there would be no reduction in the troika interest rate. On and on she goes. Every day brings more disaster forecasts from Deputy McDonald than your typical fortune teller in the visiting circus.

Sinn Féin does not know what makes a State asset strategic, and Fianna Fáil knows only too well how to sell off strategic assets, as per the Eircom experience. As the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, said last night, an asset is not strategic simply because it is owned by the State. Therefore, in circumstances where there is only one lender available to the State, this Government has done exceptionally well to retain in State ownership the strategic assets and networks, contrary to what happened in the case of Eircom, and at the same time secure approval that one third of the proceeds will redound to the State for reinvestment purposes.

Only God could help our country if this Government were to fail because there is no alternative. This Government must succeed in returning our economy to balance because the sparsely populated Opposition benches are peopled by politicians, some of whom are discredited and burnt out. Others are interested only in party advantage, irrespective of the consequences, and a few should have found other outlets for their populist preening.

The contributions I have heard on this motion are beyond belief. Some of the canards have been repeated here, including the question as to why we should sell these assets in the very low market conditions obtaining at present. We have made it clear that we are not selling anything in the low market conditions that obtain at present. We have also made it clear that whereas the troika is forcing us to sell - it is a fraction of what it has forced Greece and Portugal to sell - it is not requiring us to timeline it in any way when market conditions are so bad.

I listened to an RTE programme on Saturday morning where the participants were impatient to the point of being irritated that we did not sell everything. They asked why we could not get on with it. The second half of the same programme was devoted to the difficulties being caused for the workers concerned and those who had shares in the ESOT. They can therefore take both sides of the road with them by asking on the one hand, why we are not selling everything now, and on the other hand asking about the poor workers who will lose their shares in the ESOT.

This is a misrepresentation of what we are about here. We are doing this because it is required of us by the only lender we have. We have agreed to dispose of non-strategic assets of approximately €2 billion in the programme for Government. We have agreed to €3 billion because that was the best we could secure agreement with the troika after it insisted on €5 billion with the previous Government. We have got €1 billion of that for reinvestment purposes in the productive potential of the economy which is, all in all, not a bad deal.

At some stage, some of those on the Opposition benches will have to come forward with some prescription to get us out of the difficulties we are in. They do not seem to accept that we are in difficulty, however. Last night, I head Sinn Féin's finance spokesman on a radio programme being asked what he would do now. He said: "Well, we could always get bilateral arrangements". He was then asked what that meant and he replied, "We might be able to get loans from Denmark or the United Kingdom". We are getting loans from the UK in terms of its subvention to Northern Ireland. Thanks be to God for the Queen's shilling or we would be in big trouble but I doubt if they will give us loans to run this part of the country. I doubt if Denmark would have much regard for us if we followed that advice and were thrust into penury.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Follow that, as they say. It is difficult to follow the technicolour of the Minister's skill and his veteran abilities in addressing this House. I wish to pick up on a few points, however. Some €5 billion had been earmarked in the minds of the troika for the sale of State assets. It was an achievement to negotiate the sale of investments down to a level of €3 billion. I have changed the word "assets" to "investments" because these were always investments. In Ireland, the Government and semi-State companies have never carried non-revenue or non-income producing investments. They have generated employment and have worked productively and profitably.

If I were at the negotiating table - particularly after the wise decision to declare a referendum on the fiscal compact - I would seek, at the right time, a successful divestment of existing investments into more powerful and newer investments. The old investments would thus be under new ownership, while the employment levels and operations would probably not be that materially altered. The sale proceeds, in the order of €3 billion, could then be invested in new technologies, industries and markets creating new levels of employment. That would be a good day's work.

If all the timetables come to pass, on 31 March we will be on the point of organising a €3.1 billion injection into the IVRC. We might pause that to ask our counterparts in the troika to consider a fresher and more powerful investment regarding a divestment from older mature industries into newer ones creating employment. That would be a fresher way of looking at things, as well as being a new and robust departure.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. If it is any indication of what we will get in the coming weeks on the stability treaty, on which we will be voting, it is fair to say that an enormous amount of misinformation and tripe will be spoken. For example, we heard it tonight concerning Coillte. It is clear that 7% of Coillte's land will not be sold but that it will comprise harvesting rights. The assertion was made that jobs will be lost but the biggest employers in our State are private companies. Those private companies that will be buying some State assets will also give employment. The most ludicrous suggestion of all was that the new company would start cutting down our trees. Since that is a significant part of what Coillte is already doing, the suggestion should be disregarded.

The discussion about the EU-IMF troika programme should also be disregarded, apart from the fact that under Fianna Fáil we were losing €5 billion whereas now we will lose €2 billion net. That is a saving of €3 billion, which joins a long list of savings and corrections to the agreement negotiated by a good and prudent Government.

The most important factor is that it is good business to examine the assets the State already has to see how we can improve them in future by allowing companies to be sold. In my own city of Cork, Bord Gáis is regarded as one of our most important employers. Having met a number of its employees, I know they are remarkably energised by the proposal that their company will have much greater freedom to act. When and if the company is sold, it will most likely secure a good price for the State. I have been struck by the employees who see huge opportunities for them to embrace the fact that their company will be private and not restricted within the semi-State sector as it is currently.

Another myth that must be nailed is that those working in the semi-State companies do not want to be part of realising their economic potential. We have seen a significant movement across a broad range of work areas where people working in private companies have fantastic careers and enjoy the protections that used to be afforded just to the semi-State sector.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to get the opportunity to state my support for the disposal of State assets at a time when the best value can be obtained from their sale. There is no question of a fire sale, despite what has been said, nor should there be. I am delighted that not alone is the Government clear about this but so too is the troika.

I do not subscribe to the notion, for either ideological or sentimental reasons, that we should somehow cling to semi-State bodies because of their historical importance. Many of these bodies served us well in the past but there is a time for everything. Now the needs of our nation are different and constantly changing. We require new strategic semi-States to replace those we no longer need and whose disposal can help us finance them. We need broadband, new water sources and distribution systems and to move to renewable energy. To sacrifice these vital services for some false or misplaced ideology or loyalty to the past is to ensure we miss the boat. It reminds me somewhat of Waterford Glass, preserved and loved for years in many people's homes but which now sits in charity shops underloved, undervalued and unsold.

We all wish we could have the €3 billion from the sale of some State assets to put into new strategic assets. Instead, we can use €1 billion from the sale for investment in new assets. The remaining €2 billion paying off State debt will not be wasted as the 5% interest on that figure comes to €100 million per annum.

As for those who constantly claim we are getting rid of essential assets, there is no question of losing control over the major distribution networks of the ESB or Bord Gáis. These networks are strategic monopolies and we have learned the lesson of Eircom. There is no need to raise that canard.

Aer Lingus probably should have been sold long ago. The State's 25% stake was to prevent Ryanair from taking full control, a move which is now prohibited by the Competition Authority. Aer Lingus is in a perilous situation barely making an operating profit and has a significant pension deficit. To be honest it needs the protection of a larger owner. Selling off the stake would be in the airline's interest in the longer term.

One caveat I have about State asset disposal is that there should be no wholesale gifting of shares to employees in State companies. I know it happened in the past but the taxpayer cannot afford it any longer. It was unnecessary in the past and is certainly unnecessary now. After all, secure well-paid employment is ample reward for working for a State company.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have the greatest respect for aspects of the ideology behind the motion that Sinn Féin has presented. I have no desire to see our public assets sold nor does the Labour Party. We do this with a heavy heart and with regret. The realities of government, however, and of a crisis such as this means we do not have the luxury of the Opposition parties in sticking dogmatically to our ideology. Sinn Féin knows well that ideology must sometimes be compromised when faced with political reality, as it demonstrated to its credit during the negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement and St. Andrews Agreement.

Sinn Féin Members are sometimes criticised for the incongruous nature of their criticism of the Government in this jurisdiction, especially when compared to how their party colleagues are carrying out their duties in the North. Sinn Féin rightfully defends itself from such criticism by pointing out the Northern Assembly and Executive are forced to work within the budgetary constraints laid down by Westminster. Perhaps, Sinn Féin might recognise the Government here is similarly constrained both by financial and economic realities.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a far different situation there.

Colm Keaveney (Galway East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Stanley knows that is the reality.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government is also constrained by the political realities of international agreements entered into on behalf of the State by the previous Government, such as the one that has mandated this sale of State assets.

A review group was set up by the previous Administration to ascertain which of our State assets could be best used to promote growth and investment in the economy by means of disposing of some of the equity therein. For example, with the sale of Coillte's forestry stock, it is imperative its wide and varied number of forest tracks and walks remain open to the public with no restricted access while the trees are removed from the land. Appropriate assurances and guarantees must be put in place so as not to block access to these wonderful facilities across the country.

Only this week, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC, stated that as a result of tough decisions in recent years, international investors are again looking favourably on Ireland's long-term growth and prospects, suggesting there will be no shortage of interest in investment opportunities in Irish assets.

Warnings exist over the sale of some national assets and that we should not make the same mistakes as were made in the past in the sale of Eircom. The goal is to find the right balance between selling off some State assets to the private sector while retaining State control over those strategic assets. In the past, studies have examined public versus private but this sale will be different. This will offer the possibility of mixed ownership where the State retains a stake in the asset. It will also offer the chance of reaping the benefits of private ownership while keeping State control over what can be considered strategic assets.

I thought I would hear hoots of derision from Members opposite but there are not enough of them present. The reality is stark for them. It is we the Government who must make these tough decisions. It is we the Government who were elected by the people. It is we who will bring prosperity back to the people.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ann Phelan is correct that it is the people who elected this Government on the basis of what they were told before the general election. She also spoke about ideology. Since the announcement was made on the sale of State assets, much of the focus has been on how it sits with Labour's ideology. I have noted it does not sit well with the many Labour Members with whom I have spoken. Deputy Ann Phelan herself said her party did not have the luxury of sticking to its ideology. Last night Deputy Lyons said the sale did not sit well with him but he had no choice.

Over the past 12 months we have become accustomed to the we-have-no-choice rhetoric coming from the Government benches, particularly from Labour Deputies. While the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, can laugh all he wants, people knew the situation we were in 12 months ago and the Labour Party based its election manifesto on this. Compared to what the party promised in the election and what it is doing in government, people are now becoming immune to the constant flip-flopping of the Labour Party. The Minister is leaving the House, but I wish to remind Labour Deputies of what the party said about Coillte in its election manifesto.

Labour is committed to the concept of public enterprise and is determined to ensure that semi-State companies play a full role in the recovery of the Irish economy. We are opposed to short-termist privatisation of key State assets such as Coillte and the energy networks.

Before he left, the Minister referred to what he said previously in the House and outside it about his position on non-strategic State assets such as Coillte and the energy networks. I want to know when Coillte became a non-strategic State asset. Only 12 months ago in its election manifesto the Labour Party listed Coillte as a key State asset.

We all know the Fine Gael position on State assets. There is no surprise there. This is a bad policy. Many Labour Deputies know it is a bad policy. They know deep down that this will do nothing to help our economic recovery in the long term. The approach is short-termist and is a knee-jerk reaction to what the troika is demanding. If they do not take my word for it they should take the word of the man they campaigned for only a few short months ago in the presidential election. He said recently before a London School of Economics audience that "Privatisation is the road back to autocracy in which a hollowed-out state is bereft of anything meaningful to attract the support of the citizen, especially the marginalised, excluded from the mainstream of society." The President, Mr. Michael D. Higgins, is a man for whom all Members of the Labour Party knocked on doors and campaigned. That is his position on the matter.

Much has been made of the €1 billion that will be used for investment purposes. If the Government achieves its target - it is a big "if" given the current market conditions - the troika has told us we can use the €1 billion to reinvest in the economy. However, there are alternatives. Instead of doing what the Government proposes, it could take a leaf out of the Fine Gael manifesto to use the funds in the National Pensions Reserve Fund to boost economic recovery. The Government could take €1 billion out of the fund to use for that purpose. Why does the Government not pursue investment funds from the European Investment Bank? The answer is that it chooses not to. This is a political choice. The Government is choosing to sell State assets to pay down debt. It is choosing to sell State assets at a time when we will not realise the full market value. It is doing that to satisfy the troika when people elected it to act on their behalf and to put their best interests first, not those of speculators and gamblers and not the troika. People will judge the Government harshly. People learn lessons in politics. Fianna Fáil, which was in the previous Administration, was kicked out. Unless the Labour Party changes direction and stops being the mudguard for Fine Gael then I fear that it will go down the same route. It has an opportunity to change direction.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The sell-off of State assets is bad politics and bad economics, and in Sinn Féin's view it is not necessary. That is not Fine Gael's position, which is fair enough. In fairness to the party, it has been clear about that for a long time. However, the Labour Party used to believe that selling off State assets was bad politics and bad economics and was not necessary. There was a time when Labour understood that and championed public services and State ownership of key State assets. The Minister responsible understood that when he was in Official Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin The Workers Party, the Workers Party, New Departure and Democratic Left, but it seems that is no longer the case. The colonisation of Labour has taken place, as the party has succumbed to the charms of Fine Gael. Labour has bought into privatising State assets in the interests of bankers and developers and the right wing ideological demands. Before the last election Labour said it was committed to the concept of public enterprise. It claimed that it was determined to ensure that semi-State companies would play a full role in the recovery of the Irish economy. The dear leader said Labour told us it was opposed to the short-termist privatisation of key assets, such as Coillte or the energy networks. Now a Labour Minister is pushing through a conservative economic strategy and is planning to do what Labour said it would never do.

People find it difficult to accept the commitment to sell off successful self-financing State companies. Nobody wants to buy unsuccessful self-financing companies. They only want to buy something which is profitable and is able to bring them a surplus. The State companies that have been earmarked for sale include Bord Gáis's energy business and some elements of the ESB's power generation capacity, as well as the possible sale of some assets of Coillte and the State's remaining shares in Aer Lingus. These are successful companies that would be, if the Government had its head screwed on, part of the solution to the creation of jobs and delivering growth.

There is no commitment in the memorandum of understanding with the troika for the sell-off of State assets. That may be its wish and desire but there is no legal or other imperative on the Government to do it. The fact is that the Government wants to do it. The Government is in favour of the policy it has announced. When we met with the troika it told us that while it believes in privatisation, a decision on the sale of State assets was not binding on the Government.

It has been claimed that the sell-off will raise €1 billion at some undetermined time in the future and that it will be used for job creation. That must be set against the Government's decision to give away taxpayers' money to unguaranteed bondholders and bad banks. I have never been able to work it out, although I can figure out intellectually why a Government would do this but the mathematics of it are beyond me. A total of €20 billion was given to the banks last year and €3.1 billion will be given to Anglo Irish Bank at the end of next month and then one wonders why there is not money to invest in job creation, public services, front line services in health, and why schools must be stripped of resources. Even if there was some merit in recapitalising banks the fact is that the money is being paid into a zombie bank, what will probably emerge in the fullness of time to be a criminal bank.

It is also a myth that privatisation and deregulation bring competitiveness and efficiency. It was the right wing deregulation strategies of Thatcher and Reagan and others in the 1980s that led to the growing gap these policies created between the rich and poor. People like us will do okay. We might not be wealthy or be able to enjoy a good life but the gap between us and others is widening. The pattern wherever privatisation has been pursued and profitable state companies have been sold off is one of job losses, increased prices for consumers and big profits for private speculators. In Britain the first public company to be privatised under Thatcher was British Telecom. That was in 1984. Within six years 42 other major companies had been sold off. Such an agenda also weakens the ability of the trade union movement to protect workers because the privateers do not want union rights and workers to be organised. Labour backbenchers and supporters should take note and try to figure out what sort of society will be the outcome. Trade union members and leaders should press the Labour Party to come clean on how many other public companies or State assets will be privatised and at what cost to them, their families, communities, consumers and citizens.

It seems that the Government has learned nothing from the experience of privatisation. Níl aon rud foghlaimithe ag an rialtas seo le bliain anuas ar chúrsaí príobháidiú. Mar shampla, Irish Sugar was privatised, leading to the gradual running down of what was a profitable sugar industry and the eventual closure of the sugar factories in Mallow and Carlow. This is recent history. In the Eircom debacle, a State communications company worth €8.4 billion at the time of its privatisation had a net value of just €39 million by 2011. How did this happen? The Labour Party leader, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, has been highly critical of the disastrous sell-off of Eircom. He described what occurred as a debacle and compared it with "being bought and sold like a clapped out second-hand car". It was asset-stripped and considerable profits were made by casino capitalists, but the Irish public paid the price. There was no investment in the development of the telecommunications infrastructure. We still lag behind in this regard. Available download speeds remain below the fastest speeds available in other OECD countries. Once again, the Government either ignores or simply does not care.

When ageing former revolutionaries in a conservative alliance with an unashamedly conservative party end up pursuing these policies, the membership and grassroots of their party must ask where it is all going. From international experience, it is clear that the disadvantaged status of women relative to men in the workplace is worsened by privatisation. There are social consequences to these decisions.

If there is no public airline, public energy body, post services or forestry body, what kind of society will be left? There is no point in blaming anyone else for the Government's actions. It should reverse course, although that is unlikely. It should reconsider the sell-off of Bord Gáis and other key assets and stand up for the rights of working people. It should also utilise these profitable sectors to regenerate our economy.

It is worth reminding Labour in particular - I will remind Fine Gael as well, as it has many good, sound members - of the Proclamation, which states: "We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible." It does not state: "...unless the big bankers, the golden circle and the IMF dictate otherwise." As we approach the 1916 centenary, the Taoiseach will not be returning our economic sovereignty to us. Rather, the Government will be tearing up the 1916 Proclamation.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have seen four years of family and community-breaking austerity, a contracting economy, stagnant demand, forced emigration, sky high unemployment and reducing tax receipts. One would imagine that serious consideration would be given to a change in policy. Evidently not. Instead, the new Government already faces a contracting economy, which makes a fantasy of the budgetary projections made just three months ago. One would imagine that someone on the Government side would cop on and change approach, but, alarmingly, no. By all accounts from Germany, the Government looks likely to implement a mini-budget that will force more poisonous medicine on the ailing patient.

In such an environment, the Government should be enthusiastically searching for alternative opportunities to grow the economy and trying to observe international trends and best practice. Here are the trends. Two thirds of emerging market companies that made it onto the Fortune 500 list last year are state-owned and most of the rest enjoy some level of state input.

State companies include some of the world's largest companies, creating profits throughout the world. It is not a case of private versus the centrally planned of old. New State companies are good at learning from the market to ensure that they can be successful and profitable. State companies can access funds that are currently unavailable to many Irish companies. They can invest in pivotally important infrastructure such as broadband whereas equivalent Irish companies cannot. During the early years of this State, the Government created a large number of State companies because the equivalent private capital did not exist. Contrast that situation with the current one.

Contrast also the State's approach to indigenous gas generation with that of Norway or Brazil. Both of those countries created state companies and utilised them to search for, extract and sell gas. Those companies went on to become market leaders and reaped a rich harvest for their respective populations. Unfortunately, successive Irish Governments have given away valuable Irish gas to foreign multinationals, imposed little or no royalties and spent millions of euro of taxpayers' money policing protests against those companies.

The same ineptitude will see the Government sell the self-financing ESB, a State company that has paid €1.2 billion in dividends during the past nine years and that contributed €2.2 billion to the economy through purchases from Irish suppliers, taxes, rates, wages and dividends in 2010 alone.

In many ways, the Government is 30 years behind the curve and following an outdated Thatcherite philosophy instead of embracing new developments in the world economy. Unfortunately for Ireland, the true blue Tory Fine Gael Party, emboldened from watching the Oscar winning film "The Iron Lady", has lulled the Labour lap dog into an ideological slumber.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not seen it yet.

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

Deputy Ann Phelan is in it.

Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted.

Shane McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do not want to see it.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have the disgusting spectacle of Fine Gael and Labour cashing in hard-earned and profitable family jewels at the pawnbrokers to pay down Anglo Irish Bank and other private banking debt. I welcome the fact that the coming referendum will allow people the opportunity to reject these policies and to chart a new economic course for the country.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is interesting that we are debating the final leg of this Private Members' motion on the day we also debated the austerity treaty, its merits and so on. There is a root to both debates. This reverts to the great economic debate of the past century between Hayek and Keynes. Hayek believed in small government and unbridled, free market capitalism that could trickle down. Keynes believed in interventionism and that the role of the state was to intervene during recessions. Such intervention is badly needed to solve our crisis.

Thatcher and Reagan embraced Hayek's philosophy with a zeal and sought to deregulate many of their economies' sectors, privatise and liberalise public services where possible and drive down wages and conditions. They believed in this approach passionately. It is all interconnected. It is the reason for our banking crisis. Unbridled, fierce capitalism has left a devastated mess behind.

What do we get in response to the failure of that right-wing Thatcherite ideology? More of the same. We have an austerity treaty which aims at cutting public services and we are getting rid of our State assets in a panicked fire sale at the worst possible moment in order to meet the demands of those who have failed us.

This betrayal of the promises made to the people over the years affects our health system as well as State assets. HIQA is trying to do its important job at a time when health services are suffering from a lack of investment in health services. This under-investment in community hospitals and long-stay homes plays into the hands of the private sector. Private nursing homes are stepping in to do the job that the State used to do while also driving down wages and conditions because nurses are paid a lot less in the private sector. Our hospitals' car parks, shops and cafés are being privatised. Resources are being removed from local authorities and handed over to the private sector. The unwritten rule in every aspect of our public services demands that we cut out what we can because the private sector can do it cheaper, regardless of the impact on services for the public. That was the experience with Eircom.

This motion goes to the heart of the crisis. Unbridled free market capitalism has failed the people of Ireland and of Europe but the solution we are offered is more of the same. There is no modesty in that ideology. The people at the top of governments and institutions across Europe drew up these policies. We are giving away our family jewels to pay off the people who failed us. The impact will be devastating.

At some point Government Deputies will have to ignore the speaking notes they were given by their press office and do their own research. They will have to speak to the people who work in these organisations or look into their own hearts to remind themselves why they entered politics. I guarantee them the answer will not be to vote against a motion which reflects the principles they used to represent.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo ar mhaoin an Stáit. Mar a dúirt an cainteoir a chuaigh romham, tá sé iontach tábhachtach go bhfuil muid ag plé seo agus muid ag plé leis an reifreann. Beidh muid ag scansáil ar feadh cúpla seachtain agus b'fhéidir cúpla mí amach anseo.

It is said that a week is a long time in politics. If that is the case, a year must seem like a lifetime. It was certainly long enough for the parties now in Government to abandon wholesale the policies they held for decades while in Opposition. Nowhere is that truer than in the Labour Party's abandonment of the semi-State sector. We have heard Labour Party Ministers and Deputies claim that the proposals announced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform are reasonable and in the best interest of the State. We have also heard them try to sweeten the blow with promises of investment in job creation.

Let us remind ourselves what that party used to represent before it took office. In 2011 the Labour Party election manifesto told prospective voters:

Labour is committed to concept of public enterprise, and is determined to ensure that semi-state companies play a full role in the recovery of the Irish economy. Labour is opposed to short-termist privatisation of key state assets, such as Coillte or the energy networks.

The 2007 Labour Party manifesto outlined proposals for the mobilisation of ESB and Coillte in the service of economic development and environmental sustainability. Now we see two Labour Party Ministers, Deputies Howlin and Rabbitte, abandoning more than a decade of principled support for the semi-State sector. What is worse is that they are doing the grubby bidding for their Fine Gael masters in Government, who were never supportive of the semi-State sector and wanted to privatise profitable State assets irrespective of the long-term losses to the State and citizens.

Thankfully, not everyone in the Labour Party is happy with these decisions. Angry voters and elected representatives across the country do not understand why this is happening. Doubtless they are being told the decision is being foisted on the Government by the troika. We all know this is not true but why let it get in the way of justifying the abandonment of core party principles?

This anger was clearly expressed by Labour Party member and general secretary of SIPTU, Jack O'Connor, last week, when he stated: "Today's announcement regarding the sale of some public enterprises is a sad day for the Irish people and a tragedy for the Labour Party". Another prominent member of the Labour Party, President Higgins, told the London School of Economics that privatisation "is the road back to autocracy, in which a hollowed-out state is bereft of anything meaningful to attract the support of the citizen". It must reassure the Tánaiste that not every member of his party dispensed with the policies he put to the people in the general election 12 months ago.

It makes no economic, strategic or social sense to sell these State assets. It will result in financial losses to the State and the taxpayer in dividends foregone over the long term. There will be a diminution of influence and, in the case of Aer Lingus, the loss of a seat at the table when decisions of strategic importance are taken. It will increase regional and social inequality of access to vital public services.

If this Government was serious about job creation it would invest the billions of euro that remain in the National Pensions Reserve Fund rather than sell off profitable State assets at some point in the future. Even as it sells off these profitable State assets, it is spending billions of euro in taxpayers' money on the acquisition of new assets in the form of bank bailouts. It has budgeted €1.3 billion this year to purchase the life insurance component of Irish Life & Permanent, on top of the €3.1 billion it intends to inject into Anglo Irish Bank on 31 March and the €21.3 billion it gave to the banks in 2011. Perhaps the Labour Party is committed to investing in State assets after all, provided those assets are banks in need of bailout after bailout.

I have no doubt that a return to core Labour Party principles is out of the question for the Ministers, Deputies Howlin and Rabbitte, but I urge backbenchers to heed the words of Jack O'Connor and President Higgins by supporting Sinn Féin's motion defending State assets.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The only thing wrong with the arguments from the Deputies opposite is their failure to make sense. The alternative to selling these assets for the purposes that have been proposed is finding €18 billion to replace the bailout money we will receive this year. They can argue left, right or centre but the problem remains the same. The alternative to unbridled capitalism is not unbridled State capitalism for which the party opposite is arguing in claiming that the State is always right. We are saying that while of course the State has a very important part to play in our economy, it is also important that some of the assets that are not essential for the functioning of those State-run or State-owned institutions can be sold to provide what the people want, which is job creation. The sale of these assets will reduce some of our debt, which we need to do, and will also create new employment. From the proceeds of State assets will come at least €1 billion for the purpose of job creation and investment in the economy. We need that €1 billion to put into those job creation programmes.

The Government has been clear about its intentions for the sale of State assets from our very first day. The programme for Government signalled our goal to use proceeds from the sale of State assets for the purpose of job creation and investment in the Irish economy. We can all agree that this is needed now more than ever.

After much deliberation the Government has agreed with our external partners that some proceeds from the sale of State assets can be used for jobs and investment. This represents a very positive and significant amendment to the memorandum of understanding with our external partners and it should be welcomed. It should be clear to all that the Government is taking an entirely new approach in our management of State assets and companies. This is why the Government has successfully established NewERA, to manage better the assets in various commercial semi-State companies. It is a welcome innovation that will prove its worth in the years ahead.

Much has been said over the course of this debate about the dangers associated with the sale of State assets. However, I can assure the House that the Government is fully aware of these dangers. The asset disposal programme that has now been agreed has been carefully planned and thought through in order to ensure that such dangers are avoided. NewERA with its expertise in managing major transactions will play a central role in any sales process and ensure that the State's interest is well protected. The Government has been careful to safeguard the position of strategic infrastructure, such as the electricity and gas networks, which is considered to be vital to the optimal functioning of the economy. We have agreed to sell some of the ESB's non-strategic power generation capacity, but its strategic distribution network will be kept in State ownership. We look forward to the forthcoming International Energy Agency report on the functioning of the Irish electricity market which is due later in the year before deciding on any further structural and regulatory actions. We will sell BGE's energy business, but again BGE's strategic assets - the gas transmission and distribution systems, and the two gas interconnectors - will be retained in public ownership.

The sale of some assets of Coillte will be examined to see how best to raise revenue, which will focus primarily on the harvesting rights of Coillte's forests. However, I again make clear that Coillte's landholdings are not for sale and will not be included in the disposal programme. The Government's remaining shareholding in Aer Lingus will be sold. However, as already explained, it is now accepted that this is no longer a strategic asset since a 25% stake in the company is not sufficient to enable the Government to determine matters of policy in Aer Lingus, for example the use of the airline's landing slots at Heathrow Airport.

Taking all this into account the target remains €3 billion to be raised from disposals. The Government is committed to securing value for the Exchequer from any disposals and we will not be rushed into any sales. Sales will only occur when market conditions are right and when adequate regulatory structures have been established to protect consumer interests. In short there will be no fire sales. Assets will only be sold on acceptable terms and at a price that achieves fair value for the Exchequer, and if fair value can not be obtained for the assets, they will not be sold.

During the course of the debate it has been claimed that the sale of these assets is not in the national interest. However, this issue has been addressed and the opposite is true. The sale of these non-strategic assets offers the potential to generate €1 billion in funding that would be available to the Government for much needed reinvestment in the economy and in jobs. In the energy sector, the disposals offer the potential to improve the competitive dynamics of the single electricity market to the benefit of consumers and, ultimately, the economy. In addition to the receipts that will be generated from the sale of the assets, a change in ownership in the case of the energy assets and the Aer Lingus shareholding offers the prospect of access to significant new capital, which might not otherwise be available, from new investors in order to grow these businesses in Ireland.

Given the enormous economic challenges facing our country and the current state of the public finances, it is imperative that the Government considers all possibilities for generating additional resources to fund much needed investment in jobs and in our economic recovery. The possibility of releasing value from some of our non-strategic State assets, as now proposed, provides just such an opportunity, offering the prospect of €1 billion in funding being available for reinvestment in job creation and to help stimulate much needed economic growth. I commend the Government's programme of asset disposals to the House.

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

Last night's speech by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, begged the following question. What on earth has he done to the Labour Party? The Minister waxed lyrical about change and told us that all had changed, changed utterly. However, if he cared to stray back to the real world he would see nothing of significance has changed since the Government took office. A year on and the same old controversy about politicians' pay, pensions and allowances continues. The scandal about payment for Government advisers and a small coterie of public servants continues. The Government talks the talk of reform but it will not walk the walk.

Any government that increases flat taxes and charges for the low paid, will cut the contributory State pension later this year, and cuts services in schools and hospitals while protecting its own big pay cheque has a brass neck to preach about change. The Minister promised us a forthcoming book on the Labour Party to mark its centenary, which I am sure will be a great read. I hope the Labour Party's wholesale capitulation to a Fine Gael agenda in this Government is not reduced to a footnote. The Minister's speech last night was flippant, inaccurate and an ultimately tragic attempt by the Labour leadership to justify its decision to ignore its party policy on the retention of commercial State assets in public ownership - at the command of Fine Gael's small government diktat. Selling off successful self-financing State assets is a bad deal for citizens and a bad deal for the economy, as Labour Party Deputies well know.

Treating the profitable elements of Bord Gáis and the ESB as cash sources for bad bank debt write-down makes no economic sense and reflects the kind of short-term policy and political decision making that got us into this crisis in the first place. The debts that are to be cleared are those of toxic private banks and are not the people's debts. However, the Government proposes to sell off the people's assets - public, valuable assets - to write down that very debt. State assets under any rational government should be used to drive the economy, create sustainable jobs and provide upskilling and training opportunities. Previous State asset sales provide positive proof that privatisation of utilities is not the panacea for the perfect competition the Government desires. The sale of these assets will not make any meaningful dent in the national debt which could reach €200 billion at its peak in 2015.

NewERA, the brainchild of Fine Gael and now lauded by Labour, is in reality a clearing house for privatisation and this round of asset disposal is simply a period of apprenticeship. Today it is the generating assets of the ESB and the energy business of Bord Gáis Éireann. Tomorrow, perhaps, it will be the networks and the interconnectors because, no doubt, in the perverse logic of the Government at some stage it will concoct some argument, however implausible, that they are not strategic either.

If the Government were serious about leveraging State companies to the benefit of the economy and citizens it would take a completely different and changed approach. Ministers would work directly with commercial semi-State companies to deliver a strategic job creation and training programme under the helm of the Taoiseach and the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education. If the Government were serious about leveraging the value of the semi-State companies, all commercial semi-State dividends paid to the coffers of the State would be reinvested into employment activation and training measures. During the past ten years the ESB and Bord Gáis Éireann have paid more than €2 billion to the State in dividends. That is double what the Government proposes to invest in job creation.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not selling them. That is the point.

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

These companies have created tens of thousands of sustainable, quality jobs and they have delivered a first class world energy infrastructure. Fine Gael and the Labour Party are perfectly aware that to seek funding they could pursue matched capital investment funds from the European Investment Bank. They know they can make a useful investment from the National Pensions Reserve Fund to build health infrastructure, home retrofitting and a capital investment stimulus programme. These measures would deliver employment and could significantly reduce Ireland's potentially crippling structural unemployment levels.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We could go to Denmark for the funding.

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

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-----

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He left Sinn Féin struck dumb.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please. Deputy McDonald, through the Chair.

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

-----and the McCarthy review, a truly flawed piece of work in respect of semi-State assets. Once again the Minister recounted the original memorandum of understanding.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He gave Sinn Féin a good history lesson.

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

Those in government tell us that the logic of this inheritance is that it is left with no option. If the Government has no options, the question to be asked is why did the Government parties make concrete commitments in their election manifestos? I do not believe those who work within the commercial semi-State sector accept that there are no options. It is clear that the Government has actively chosen to pursue the route of the last Government which it so energetically criticised.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Government will put €1 billion into the Irish economy. That is a big difference.

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

That is the fact.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will throw away the other €2 billion.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Deputy Ó Snodaigh want to stock up on ink-jet cartridges?

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

I suppose the lesson is plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, was upset at the fact and he quoted the many things on which we have challenged the Government. He is correct that we stated there should be a referendum in respect of the fiscal compact treaty. He is correct that we put the Government under pressure in respect of restoring the minimum wage.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sinn Féin voted against that.

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

The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, is absolutely correct to say that we pressurised him to maintain the ESB as a vertically integrated utility. That is correct and if that causes some problem for the Minister he will simply have to get over it. He did not mention that we also put the Government under pressure in respect of cuts in teaching numbers in DEIS programme schools. He might also have usefully observed that we have put the Government under pressure on the cutbacks that it envisages in community employment.

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

We put the Government under pressure in respect of the household charge and the septic tank charge. We will put the Government under pressure on this issue of maintaining State assets in full public ownership. We will hold the Government to account in respect of job creation. We will continue to do this and we make no apology for it.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, referred to the troika as "our external partners", an interesting turn of phrase. He would have us believe that the troika has forced the Government on the issue of the disposal of State assets. I put it to the Minister of State that this is not what those in the troika told us. We have met them twice and pressed them on the issue and they have said categorically that any sale of State assets and all decisions pertaining to that matter are a matter for the Government. I suppose they are the Government's external partners because the Government has no beef with whatever the troika strategy happens to be. The Government is in complete agreement with the troika in terms of impoverishing the State's public infrastructure. It seems the Government marches to the beat of private wealth and public squalor.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy McDonald is forgetting that we get €350 million from the troika every week.

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

We argue for the retention of these assets in public ownership not purely from an ideological position, although we are politically and ideologically committed to public ownership and public provision of essential and strategic services and we make no apology for that. That is our view. Crucially, we also make this argument on a pragmatic basis because the assets in question are valuable. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, made a flippant argument concerning Aer Lingus suggesting that 25% of a holding does not give us much.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where is Sinn Féin's €2 billion going to come from? Sinn Féin has no money and no plans.

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

A 0% holding gives the State absolutely no say whatsoever yet that is what the Government proposes. A Minister serving in Government on an island nation proposes that the State should have a 0% holding and no influence over what was once the national airline. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair holds 29% of Aer Lingus. He is a vocal shareholder indeed.

I am not a fan of Michael O'Leary or the Ryanair approach, but I wish to goodness the Government would take a leaf out of his book in terms of being vocal.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Deputy to conclude her remarks.

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

Like the McCarthy report so lamented by them, Labour and Fine Gael have failed to present any evidence-based analysis of the impact on the Irish economy of the sale of these assets. They make vague, general statements that they cannot back up about competition. They say they are committed to jobs, yet they will use the bulk of the proceeds to write down debt. It is not that we are all about the State. We recognise there must be an enterprising economy.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's time is concluded.

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

Citizens and businesses have every right to expect the State will not abdicate its responsibilities in respect of energy, transport or the use for the common and collective good of the harvest of 7% of the land mass.

I thank everyone who participated in this debate. I urge Deputies, particularly Labour Party Deputies, to think carefully, hard and long term and support our motion.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As provided under Standing Orders and given the magnitude of the U-turn the Labour Party Members have made on this issue and the importance for the State to retain our State assets, it is appropriate to give the Labour Party Members the time to reconsider their position. Therefore, I call for a vote by other than electronic means.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the Deputy's call because Deputy Ó Snodaigh was the teller, not Deputy Doherty.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Standing Orders allow for "a Deputy" and a teller representing over 20 Deputies.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They allow for a teller to call.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They allow for a teller and "a Deputy" representing over 20 Deputies.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Deputy put that in print?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, as teller, I call for a vote by other than electronic means.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Deputy Ó Snodaigh is a teller, we will proceed with a vote through the lobby.