Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

Of all the Members who sit in the Chair, the Deputy is the most understanding when a Member seeks to make a few points.

It has often been said we should run the country more using a business model. If any business was in the same position as Ireland, it would look at its assets strategically. It would examine how it could reconfigure its assets base in order to survive. We are engaged in an critical analysis of State assets. However, we are under no obligation to sell them in a firesale. No one is saying we have to sell them tomorrow, but it has been acknowledged and conceded by those who are funding the country that one third of the receipts of the sale of State assets, whatever they might be, can be reinvested to create jobs.

As somebody said to me recently, we have many opinions but very little analysis. We need to engage in an analysis to determine what would be the best list of assets to sell and which assets are strategic and those which are non-strategic. In this context, as has been said by others, we need to consider networks as opposed to facilities, be it rail, telecommunications, energy, gas, electricity supply netowrks, etc. We saw what happened in the case of Eircom when €6.2 billion was used purely for the purpose of ensuring one political dynasty would stay in power forever. Ultimately, it did not work. We are now in a position where we are considering selling up to €3 billion worth of assets and using one third of the proceeds to strategically invest in the creation of jobs, be it through the provision of improved water and broadband infrastructure, in order that we can attract foreign investment to allow us to export goods and services.

As I live in the uplands of County Wicklow in the heart of forestry territory, I wish to make a few points about Coillte. Much of what has been discussed with regard to the sale of Bord Gáis Energy, some of the ESB power generating stations, Aer Lingus and other assets is black and white. The positon on Coillte is much more complicated. Mr. Colm McCarthy in his an bord snip report said the sale of the land should not be considered, which was welcome. There are other models, but there are also dangers inherent in every option that might be taken. Therefore, a long and deep analysis is needed. For instance, if we were to sell board mills, the chances are they would be bought by a company which was our biggest competitor in the United Kingdom purely to close them down. Jobs would be lost as a result. We have to be mindful of that. If we are not careful about how we auction the licences to fell, there is a risk that the raw materials could be diverted from the board mills.

I have been talking to people in Coillte and I understand they are on the verge of a breakthrough in creating a waterproof MDF. This is where they need to be able to get leverage investment from other countries and from outside investors. Deputy Colreavy is a colleague of mine on the agriculture committee. I hope that when representatives from Coillte come before the committee, we get that sort of information out of them and find out what they have in mind. It could be the case that we do not sell it, but that they try to leverage more money and by so doing, bring in as much money as if some of Coillte was sold or auctioned. We should look at the New Zealand Crown Forestry licensing system. It gives the country complete ownership and control, and it even controls the way the licences are auctioned.

This debate will go on. We need to be reasoned about it and we should not look for populist soundbites in respect of the whole issue.

See this speech in context