Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The motion calls on the Government not to sell the harvesting rights to State forests. In half an hour Dáil Éireann will do what it normally does. All of the Government backbenchers, despite what they feel and the views they may want to represent, will do exactly what they are told and the motion will be defeated. That is parliamentary democracy as it operates here.

I hope this debate will at least help to inform the decision the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and the Cabinet are ultimately going to make in respect of this matter. I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by Members on both sides. Two arguments have been put forward in respect of selling the harvesting rights. The first of these is practical and states that pressure from the troika means that we must proceed with the sale. The second is economic and states that the sale will generate much needed cash, some of which can be directed towards job creation.

I have no sympathy with the argument relating to the troika. I have met representatives from the troika several times and on each occasion they went to great lengths to explain that while they insist on the budget deficit targets being met, how a sovereign nation meets those targets is an issue for it to deal with. Let us assume that those in the troika are codding us and that when they meet the Government they insist on certain things about which they do not inform us. Even if that were true, the troika will be gone in ten months. The sale can be delayed until they are gone and, therefore, the argument relating to the troika holds no water.

In the context of the economic argument, the Minister has suggested that the sale value might be in the region of €500 million. We know from the amendment to the motion that the troika is suggesting that half of this amount could be used for investment in job-rich areas. Let us place that in context. We are talking here about the sale of the harvesting rights to our national forests for a potential €250 million worth of investment. This year's budget makes provision for €700 million in increments which have been paid since the economic collapse. That is €700 million we pay every year. The €250 million would be a one-off benefit. That is the scale of the benefit from the sale.

What about the costs involved? We know that the industry is modernising. I agree that it has a long way to go. However, opportunity exists because it is modernising. We are aware that 12,000 people are employed in the forestry sector. The sale of the harvesting rights would mean that the State would forego any future profits from Coillte. We also know that there are outstanding pension and debt liabilities which the State would still hold if it sold off the harvesting rights. Furthermore, we are aware that the sawmill sector, in which 2,500 people are employed, is reliant on a steady stream of high-quality product from Coillte in order to operate. As several previous speakers indicated and as Peter Bacon's analysis suggests, the total cost to the State in respect of this matter would be approximately €1.3 billion. Offset against this would be the €500 million which would potentially accrue the sale of the harvesting rights. We could do something useful with half of the latter amount while with the other half we would be forced to use to write down banking debt.

See this speech in context