Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

On the sale of State assets, the previous Government asked Mr McCarthy to produce a suite of options for what it could sell if it chose to do that. The Leader of the Opposition said at the time the question was about efficiencies rather than sales. That is technically correct, but this issue was always going to come on the agenda.

In circumstances where a state asks a lender of last resort to come into the country to effectively bail it out, the lender will ask it what assets it has. There is an inevitability about this. In our discussions with the troika we found its view initially was that if we have assets we should sell them and write off our debt. That was not a position with which we could agree. The formula which has now been arrived at is good because sales will be done on a case-by-case basis, we will be able to get up to one third of the total proceeds of the purposes of capital, infrastructure or job creation measures and we will not have fire sales. It may not be appropriate to sell certain assets at this point in time, given the market. That is something we have managed to negotiate over a long period of time. The process will take a while.

I was also encouraged to hear the Leader of the Opposition say on radio today he will assess this on a case-by-case basis, which is the right way to proceed. I made the point to Senator Barrett that for many years the amount of dividends we obtained from State companies were negligible. People were very well paid but the State was getting zero return. At a time of national peril is it not right that some companies could be used for productive purposes and to write down the debt?

Senator Barrett is absolutely correct. The real problem facing our country is the debt pile. Our current borrowings are putting extraordinary pressure on future generations. We are borrowing to maintain our lifestyles at a certain level, yet the people who will pay for this in the future are our children. There is a fundamental question of whether that is sustainable.

When I studied economics I was always told there are two fundamental problems that emerge, namely if a country goes over a 10% deficit because the markets will not take it seriously, and if the debt to GDP ratio goes over 90%. We have a debt to GDP ratio of approximately 112% which will maximise next year at 118%. It is too high and we have to reduce it over it the next few years.

We are in a much better situation than Greece, which we saw over the past 48 hours hopes to achieve a debt to GDP ratio of 120.5% by 2020. It faces an extraordinary debt problem. If we have learned anything from the 1980s, when one third of all tax revenues went towards paying interest whereas it is now 20%, it is that we have to reduce the debt for our own sake as a the country. We will not be seen in a positive light by international investors if we have a massive debt pile which is not being dealt with. It is something we have to address and the Government is committed to that, not only on the current budget deficit side which will be 3% by 2015 but also to reducing, on a deliberative basis, the debt to GDP ratio over the course of the next few years.

Parliamentary engagement is crucial in all these matters. This also arose recently at a eurozone meeting in regard to Greece. Different observers and people with technical expertise will go into Greece. Some people see that as a type of occupation but we need to learn from each other and from international best practice. The day of individual countries being able to say they do not need to take advice from an international organisation are gone.

The world is very small place and the kind of expertise, knowledge and lessons we can learn from the IMF and others will work to our mutual advantage. In that context, this Bill will play a small part. It is important for us, as a small country with a relationship with the troika, that the Bill has been passed by both Houses and is now a matter for the President to determine. It means we are part of the first phase of countries, well in advance of the November or December meeting this year, and have taken our job seriously. I thank colleagues for their observations.