Professor Stephen Kinsella:

I am glad the Deputy asked me his question again because I realise that I did not answer him. Almost the last thing I say in my paper is that the sovereign wealth fund is a piece of additional financial architecture. One of the things I would love is the blueprint. I want to know where we think we are going to get to with the overall financial architecture of the State. Let us consider the State's balance sheet. The State owns Leinster House, Áras an Uachtaráin and all that stuff. The State has physical and financial assets. What do we want to use this balance sheet for and how do we choose to allow it evolve over the future? We are adding on another sovereign wealth fund. It strikes me that if you can get return from using the national reserve fund, you should do so. If we stick that fund into the overall sovereign wealth fund, I do not see any particular loss and, in fact, there is probably a benefit. However, there may be a function for it or it may be repurposed. Maybe the €6 billion is the remedial capital fund, of which the Deputy spoke about. What is sure is that if it is earning a near zero return or losing money, we should change what it is being used for.

ISIF does its own thing. We have other reserves that the NTMA is managing for us. It strikes me that there should be an expression by the Government, and certainly by the Department of Finance, of the overall blueprint as to the financial architecture of the State. If we have what are essentially three savings pots, are we going to end up with six? Is that the plan? This is an ageing fund effectively so will there be a climate change or an offshore wind one? Are we going to have just one that does a number of different things? It strikes me that only having the one makes a lot of sense. It is a case of multiple sources, multiple uses. It strikes me as well that having the fund managed by different people in different places around the world with certain amounts of institutional expertise makes sense as long as they do it cheaply on behalf of the State. It is fine to earn a return but they must earn an excess return for the State.

Finally, if we had a blueprint like I mentioned and the plan or objective was clear, it would mean that as those funds become available you could switch on the next thing. If the funds are not available, you do not switch it on but you know that it is going to be there. It is the financial equivalent of an architectural master plan. Why do we not have a master plan? It strikes me that we should have one. In his recent history of the Department of Finance, my UL colleague, Dr. Ciarán Casey, who is a fantastic young economic historian, talks a lot about the need for a deeper foresight function in the Department of Finance and in other parts of the State. This is an example of foresight. We are discussing 2030 and it is a fantastic thing to be talking about. It is a brilliant place to be and a privilege to be able to talk about the vast economic surpluses that we would like to invest in it.