Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the Senators who thoughtfully contributed to the Bill. However, a great deal of the debate has focused on two or three key areas.

I shall commence by responding to Senator Daly. He is not the only Member of the House to question whether, as he put it, this is a wise move and said he finds it disturbing. The truth is that I probably would not have brought the Bill before the House were it not for the extraordinary circumstances in which the country finds itself. Senator Mulcahy traced its origins in terms of the strictures by the troika and so on. In reply to Senator Mooney, I do not think it so much about the contribution that it makes to writing down debt that was in their minds. Rather, it is a standard precept where the IMF, but in this case it was the ECB and the EU, intrude into a country and they insist on that country making a contribution. I recall meeting my opposite number from Greece, it may have been during the Irish Presidency, and she said that her country did not have the extraordinary figure of €50 billion required in terms of the disposal of state assets and to do so it would need to sell islands. I do not think the process from the sale would make a great contribution to writing down debt. Senator Mooney's colleague, Senator Daly, reckons from what he has seen in the public domain, that it would only pay back four weeks of the debt. I do not think that is the motivation behind the initiative. The motivation is that the troika insisted, in the bailout programme in 2010, that we would embark on a programme to dispose of State assets. I traced the events in the other House so there is no point going back over them. When the new Government first met the troika, the latter put a figure of €5 billion on the measure plus a requirement that the sum would go towards writing down debt.

The ensuing negotiations lasted more than six months and the troika eventually conceded that the figure would be €3 billion with 50% of that sum being made available for reinvestment purposes in, as Senator Mooney observed, projects of commercial value. By that I think the troika meant that there must be a manifest commercial return and the projects must be worthwhile in terms of contributing to economic activity and generating employment. There is an arrangement for the remaining 50% that will, ultimately, go towards writing down debt but can be used for approved projects, in the first instance.

I cannot get into the business of commenting on what is in the public domain in newspapers. The information did not come from me and it did not come from my Department. This arrangement is being handled at an arms length from me and I would have thought that I need not explain to the House why that is the case. I really cannot go there but can reassure Senators that the notion of Bord Gáis Energy being sold off at a bargain basement price, or anything like it, will not happen. It has not happened in the case of Irish Life. Was Irish Life not pulled back from the market because the price at the time was deemed not adequate? There is no intention on the part of the Government to engage in a fire sale in this instance. There are good reasons for the way that the matter is being handled. Lord knows, sufficient funding has been made available to experts working on all sides in order to guide the sale properly.

I have not heard Senator Mullen verge into economics before and I am a bit surprised that he was so revolted by what he called the machinations and financial wizardry of the vultures out there. We live in a market economy and these guys are not in it in order to bestow some munificence on Ireland. I hope they are in it to run a profitable company that will generate employment in this country. Let us remember that Senator Clune made reference to the history of the company and so on. The company has a proud history and a proud record and it will continue to grow and thrive. It will do so because, apart from the retention of the networks and the crucial transmission system, this company will also administer the evolution of Irish Water. In fact the company will have more employees than it has ever had under its direction. The company has laid out, engineering wise, technical wise, managerial wise and financial wise, a most impressive programme for the evolution of Irish Water. I can tell Senators Mullen, Ó Clochartaigh and others who asked me that 464 people, or something like that number, work in the energy business but their jobs are assured. There are 450 people currently employed in the Bord Gáis Energy business and they will transfer to the energy company.

I think the following distinction is important regarding comparisons with previous privatisations. Apart from the fact that the sale has been forced on us, it is still not like the privatisation of Irish Sugar and the lamentable negotiations that followed in terms of the sugar quota and all of that. It is also not like the privatisation of Telecom Éireann. However, I do not challenge what Senators have said about the experience that we were left with as a result of selling it lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, I remember the robust exchanges between myself and the then Minister and distinguished former Leader of this House. At the time I accused her of walking up and down Moore Street like Molly Malone selling shares in Telecom Éireann.