Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Vice Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. I commend IMPACT on its campaign and its report, which is an excellent report not just in outlining the need to oppose the plan to sell off the harvesting rights of our public forestry but also in highlighting how important forestry is and its enormous potential for the State and the economy if properly managed, developed and expanded. It goes without saying for any sane and sensible person that we must resist any attempt to sell off the harvesting rights of Coillte. The thought of selling our forests is nothing other than a proposal to engage in an act of cultural, economic and environmental vandalism. The thought that this would be done to pay off the debts of banks and, quite likely, that banks will end up owning the forest, either the Chinese State bank, a Swiss bank or subsidiary of a Swiss bank, which Bertie Ahern is involved in, is beyond belief. What do the witnesses think of the latest noises from the Government in response to the IMPACT campaign, the campaign I am involved in and the more general public revulsion at the proposal? It has produced some interesting comments, most notably from the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, suggesting it will not go ahead. On the other hand, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, is holding the line that it is in the programme for Government and is going ahead. I take it the Government is rattled and under pressure but also subject to pressure from the troika. What do the witnesses think on that point? I am of the view we must crank it up, particularly with a Cabinet meeting imminent where a decision may be made. There is a protest next Tuesday to coincide with the Cabinet meeting outside the Dáil and I hope many people turn up. What can we do to crank up the pressure on the Government to make the right decision?

Can the witnesses comment on the Government's claim about the amount of debt that would be paid down if the harvesting rights were sold? There is an argument that it is a drop in the ocean and would have no IMPACT on debt. The Government has used the argument that the other half of the proceeds will be used to create jobs. Do the witnesses agree this is even more of a joke? What would happen is that more jobs would be lost from the sale of the forests. This not only refers to the jobs in existence but the potential to create more jobs if we invested in forestry. I am interested in the witnesses' approach to this because the Government is talking about another €300 million for job creation. I think it is a joke but it is important for IMPACT to comment on it.

Can the witnesses comment on the other narrative from the Government, which is to make a major distinction between selling the forest and selling the harvesting rights? The Government has trotted out this line to justify the sale. Something that needs to be highlighted on this point is that if the Government sells the harvesting rights, Coillte will require a subsidy and very quickly pressure will come on to sell the amenity element of Coillte or pressure will come on Coillte to charge admission fees to public forests. It is interesting that, in recent years the authorities at Avondale have started to charge admission to the car park. They did not do that in the past. The pressure is on Coillte to start internally privatising because of the commercial pressure and privatisation pressure.

I ask the witnesses to comment on this point. They also should comment on the issue of whether some privatisation already has taken place through the back door in recent years. I refer to the sale of 45,000 ha, possibly to pay down Coillte's deficit, much of which was bought by banks. What is IMPACT's take on this? Has a process of back-door privatisation already been under way in recent years that would be accelerated, were the Government to even partially privatise the harvesting rights?

My final question is about the alternative because as many members have alluded to and as has been discussed here and elsewhere, there are problems with Coillte and they are being used to justify a possible sale. While all of us are of the view that a sale would make things worse, what does IMPACT think about how we should articulate the positive argument and the positive alternative? In campaigning, we have held up the example of Switzerland as a good model, where there is substantial public forestry, a high level of afforestation and a huge amount of employment generated therefrom. The witnesses should talk a little more about what could be done here with a public model of forestry development to increase employment, give more revenue to the State and which would be a better, more positive alternative to the plan to privatise the harvesting rights.