Joe O'Toole (Independent)

It is my great pleasure to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the House and congratulate him on his elevation to office. I wish him well, not just in his career but also in his ministry, in these difficult times.

Last week, there was a classic example of which economic expert should we believe. Various international and domestic experts were asked to give their prediction for Ireland's – this small island on the western suburbs of Europe - economic growth for next year. The EU-IMF-ECB troika reduced its predicted growth rate from 0.9% to 0.4% while the Irish authorities reduced it to 0.8%. A day later, IBEC claimed the growth rate would be 1.4%. I have always stated the largest problem in addressing economic problems is knowing which expert to believe. We now know the previous Government was told lies. If it was not told lies, it was not told the full truth or given the full facts and many times was misled. Will the Minister of State tell me which figure for next year's economic growth I should believe?

It is important the Minister of State keeps these figures so as to return to them next January to see which expert might have been right. I will add that, over the years, the Irish authorities have tended to be more correct in their predictions. As we know, the great economic gurus in Standard & Poor's recently worsened our global credit rating which has caused knock-on problems for overseas companies making deposits in Irish banks. It is important, therefore, that people take economic projections with a grain of salt. Will the Minister of State explain why the Department of Finance had a more optimistic and positive view than the European Commission?

Over recent years I was always opposed to the burn the bondholders approach as I believed it would have had a serious impact on Ireland's economic credibility. Now, I am not so sure. The most recent issue of The Economist contains up to four articles on Ireland burning the bondholders. One commentator, Charlemagne, highlighted the differences between the approach of Ireland and Iceland to their respective economic crises. It is not just about a simplistic approach of putting the question of default to a national referendum. Six months ago we could not think of doing it because the impact, internationally, would have destroyed our credibility. However, now that we are beginning to control the size of the banks problem, we at least are in a situation, if not to burden the bondholders, to ask them to share the burden. I would like to hear the Minister of State say how that might be approached.

At the beginning of this, about two years ago, I remember supporting the then Government at the time on everything except the date, 2014. It is worthwhile recalling the arguments of those who said that timeframe would put too much pressure on the economy, that it was unsustainable and would destroy domestic demand, in particular. I am aware that the Government is prevaricating slightly and the date has clearly been extended to 2015, if not 2016. There is nothing wrong with that, and I should like to hear the Minister of State's views on that as well. Without being chauvinistic or nationalistic, it is important to have some discussion on the contrasts and comparisons between Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Iceland. If I were to pick one of those economies to try and get right, it would be Ireland for a whole variety of reasons.

The Minister of State mentioned the exports in his speech. I mention the issue of education, third level in particular. Ireland is now in a position to grow the economy with doctoral level input, whereas in Portugal only 14% of students get to third level. It seems impossible to see how that economy could be weaned away almost from pre-development economic status.

On the question of domestic demand, the media got on the bandwagon last week as regards the auction in St. Stephen's Green of the distressed properties. However, the issue for the rest of us should be where the money came from. It came from the extraordinary levels of savings that have been made in Ireland over the past three or four years. The State has been so focused on the structural issues that I should like to hear the Government talking about releasing that money. Both sides of the House acknowledge this has to be done, but how can we give people the confidence to buy? What we saw last week was not just a kick-start to the property boom but rather the fact that people saw a bargain. In the event, they were able to spend, and they had the money. There is no doubt that this is the reality and it is something that needs to be looked into somewhat further.

The growth in exports, as the Minister of State has indicated, is crucial to where we are going. I apologise that I did not hear Senator Boyle's speech as I was with some people at the time, but the question of renewable energy is an issue we need to look at. Specifically, I ask the Minister of State to consider the following. There are two problems with the development of renewable energy in terms of wave power, green and wind energy in particular, one of which is connection to the grid. People are playing ducks and drakes at the moment. There are people buying a place in the queue with no intention of connecting to the grid, but rather with the intention of selling the place in the queue to other entrepreneurs who are seriously trying to make an investment. That needs to be examined.

The other issue is the refit price, the price paid for renewable energy that is being fed into the grid, and that needs to be raised. A cost benefit analysis needs to be done on what would happen if the refit price were increased. I believe we would gain; it would make us more energy independent and more energy competitive. All these variables might be fed into a cost benefit analysis.

I do not have time to speak on the Croke Park agreement, but I want to deal with an issue that has arisen recently, that is, the State agencies. I would like to hear how the Government will approach State agencies. Very simply, I am asking that every State agency should be formally requested to put forward proposals to Government on how it can make a positive impact on the economy. Before we close down a State agency, we might ask whether there is any reason it might not be expanded. Let us see what they have to offer. One of problems is that people are entirely focused on the Government's assertion that it will get rid of 200 quangos, to the exclusion of all else. I do not have any fundament problem with this if they are not doing their business. However, the question should be asked as to whether they might have been doing something which had to be done, and who will do it now. A cost benefit analysis would show the cost of the operation, but it must be determined whether a particular agency might have been doing something extra, that it had not been doing previously. I can certainly give plenty of examples and chapter and verse in that regard.

I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. I wish him well and hope he is successful in his portfolio.