Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

The Minister has raised many issues. While it would be easy for me to harangue the Government for what I consider is a bad decision on the sale of State assets, we must look at this rationally in the cold light of day and decide the best option. I know the Minister in his heart and soul feels uncomfortable with the Government's decision.

It must be clarified that the EU-IMF memorandum of understanding signed by the previous Government contains no commitment to or figure for the sale of State assets. The MOU states, "the Government will undertake an independent assessment of the electricity and gas sectors with a view to enhancing their efficiency [a point we all agree with]? with a view to setting appropriate targets for the possible privatisation of State-owned assets".

The first part of this was done by the McCarthy report on the privatisation of State assets. During the summer when I was on so-called "holidays", I read the McCarthy report from beginning to end and its proposals for every company. I often do not agree with what Mr. McCarthy writes but this report on privatisation was well written, useful and informative.

What one finds from the report is a proposal to sell off, say, RTE's 2FM—it does not serve any great national purpose being just a pop station—would not realise any significant amount of money. The report also referred to the National Stud, but again no significant moneys would be involved in its sale.

Accordingly, after all the proposals were crystallised, the Government found out the only way to raise serious moneys would be to sell off the ESB. No other sale would raise significant moneys in the context of State spending. While I accept certain small parts of State businesses could be sold, the McCarthy report proved there is not a whole lot of ready cash in the State sector that could be realised to be invested in other sectors. There is also no major source of moneys from the State sector without huge downsides.

One example is Coillte Teoranta in which Coillte's crop is sold off but the land-holding is retained in State ownership, a rather neat arrangement. I have had, however, dealings with Coillte wearing two hats, a commercial one, as manager of my local timber mill and a rural recreational one, when I was Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. I found that, as an integrated company, Coillte Teoranta was able to marry its positive pursuit of timber industries with rural recreation, in which it was making a sizable investment for no direct fiscal return, on the grounds that doing so was in the national interest. Some 45% of waymarked ways are through Coillte's lands. Year in, year out, Coillte has invested in providing mountain bike trails and so on.

Is the Minister telling me that, if Coillte owns the crop and wants to get it out, it will not assert that its job is not rural recreation, even for a marginal increase in return and no matter how much failure to do so will discommode the tourism industry we are building? We have gone from 200,000 walkers to 500,000. We are heading for 1 million. Coillte will say this does not matter because it is a commercial company. It will get the value and close the walkways. We have been able to marry the two concerns under the current structure.

We made a firm decision in government because we learned from past mistakes, particularly with Comhlucht Siúcra Éireann. I was a Member of the Seanad at the time and the Minister is the only Member present who was a Deputy. We were given all sorts of guarantees about golden chairs, minority stakes and so on. No matter what the Minister believes he will do or how good his intentions are, the situation will change once the Government starts selling parts of the transmission line. Consider other cases. If the Government sells 20% or 25%, two things will-----

See this speech in context