Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I wish to comment on the position of Bord Gáis, ESB, Coillte and Aer Lingus. We all agree there can be no sell-off of strategic State assets. The Minister has used the word "strategic" in several speeches without ever explaining what it means. I would like him to indicate as soon as possible what he means when he refers to "strategic State assets".

On previous occasions I have made suggestions in respect of some of the ESB's plants, particularly those connected to hydroelectric dams. I refer, for example, to the dams at Ardnacrusha and Inniscarra, which is situated on the River Lee. It cannot be the case that a private company might own and control these installations and, by definition, could control the water levels in the rivers on which they are located. It would not be acceptable if such a company, in order to generate electricity or for some other purpose, opened these dams and caused severe flooding downstream. Clarifying the position in respect of matters of this nature should not prove to be too difficult. The Minister may have other strategic power plants in mind in this regard and it is important, therefore, that information regarding his intentions should be placed on the record as soon as possible.

I agree with the Minister's comments in respect of Coillte. A number of Members on this side of the House previously referred to issues such as continued access to Coillte land. I refer, for example, to a situation where the company would retain the freehold in respect of a plot of land but where it sold the leasehold relating to that land to another company or person for a period of ten, 20 or 30 years. In such circumstances, whoever held the leasehold would effectively be in situ and in control of the property and this could prevent the attendant forestry from being used for leisure and tourism purposes. There would be a need to cut down some of the trees on such land during the period of the leasehold. Will there be a commitment in respect of replanting during this period?

On the previous occasion on which we discussed this matter, I referred to the carbon credits relating to our forests. These are extremely important because they are of great assistance in the context of the climate change agenda. Perhaps the Minister might indicate the overall value of the carbon credits which Coillte currently holds on behalf of the State and then the approximate value per hectare of these.

The Minister indicated that he is considering a number of options with regard to Coillte. I wish to suggest one such option but I must include the caveat that it is not necessarily one which I would pursue. From a commercial point of view, most people consider trees planted in forests as being part of a 20-year crop. We know the Minister is not selling the land. Many individuals involved in forestry view their crops as a form of pension fund because they will obtain a big lump sum from these crops at some point. Would it not be possible for Coillte to retain ownership of the ownership, management and harvesting of its forestry crops while realising now what would be the value of these when eventually harvested? It could raise that money from a pension company and give the latter a right to claim the relevant funds in 20 years' time, when a particular part of a forest might be harvested or sold off. This would allow Coillte to realise the value of future crops now and it could then hand over the money obtained to the State for investment purposes and to create jobs. Perhaps the Minister might give consideration to this proposal, under which Coillte would retain control and management of its lands and forests.

We all agree that there should be no fire sale and that State assets should not be sold for a price below their economic value. In the context of raising money to facilitate job creation, I am concerned that the sale of State assets could take a couple of years to complete. The Government is not going to realise any cash in this regard during the current year and it will probably fail to do so again next year. The people who were queuing up to gain entry to the jobs fairs in Dublin and Cork in recent days will have left the country at that stage. Essentially, the Minister is saying that they should telephone us or communicate with us in three years' time via Skype and we will inform them at that point as to whether we obtained any money to create jobs in the meantime. The Minister stated he will not be rushing the process in this regard. Effectively, therefore, he is informing people that we might have something for them in a few years from now. This approach is not fair and it fails to provide hope to those people who are seeking an early indication with regard to what is going to happen.

The Minister is well aware that I object to any of the proceeds from the sale of State assets being used to pay down debt. Such proceeds as accrue should be used entirely for the purposes of job creation. The Minister and I have different views on this matter. He has stated that the troika has given us a concession by allowing us to use one third of the proceeds towards job creation. I am of the view that the Government is being submissive in the context of handing over two thirds of whatever amount is realised to the troika. It is important that all of this money should be used to generate growth, employment and economic activity because the latter offer the best avenues towards securing our future.

The Government's track record on job creation is extremely poor. Figures which emerged during the past year bear this out. The Government introduced a jobs initiative last year and this involved raiding private pension funds to obtain €2 billion for the period up to 2014. The majority of the funds raised under this scheme were supposed to be spent on job creation last year. This did not happen, however, and the moneys in question were carried over in order to bolster the Government's coffers. I am concerned that the Government will do with the proceeds from the sale of State assets what it did with the money it obtained by raiding private pension funds last year, namely, subsume them into general funds and use them to reduce the budget deficit. This is what happened in respect of the jobs initiative.

I have proof in this regard. On Tuesday last, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, when addressing delegates at the annual conference of the Irish Hotels Federation, referred to the reduction in VAT from 13.5% to 9% in July 2011 as part of the Government's jobs initiative and stated that this had cost the Exchequer €110 million to €130 million a year. He indicated that this "is a lot of money". The Minister then stated that the Government will be obliged to consider whether to extend this measure, which is only due to remain in place until the end of July, for another year. He indicated "That has to be worked out in the context of the next budget as to whether we have that kind of space". The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport let the cat out of the bag by stating the money taken from private pension funds, which certain individuals stated in the House last year would be used for job creation purposes, will be considered in the context of next year's budget. In other words, the Minister has indicated that the jobs initiative was put in place in a budgetary rather than a job creation context. I am concerned that any proceeds realised from the sale of State assets would merely be subsumed into general Government funds and put towards balancing the budget rather than being used to promote growth.

Reference has been made to a figure of €3 billion. I do not know from where this came but the Minister indicated that the NTMA supplied it. The figure has not been verified. On the previous occasion on which we discussed this matter the Minister stated it cannot be verified until we go to the market. The figure of €3 billion may be correct or it may be wrong. No one really knows and we will be obliged to wait and see.

See this speech in context