asked the Minister for Finance the total Exchequer foreign debt and the total national debt on 31 March 1986.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Foreign/National Debt.
24.
The national debt at 31 March 1986 is provisionally estimated to have been £21,100 million of which £8,816 million represents total Exchequer foreign debt.
Would the Minister enlighten us on whatever rescheduling is proposed in regard to the foreign debt in order to alleviate the year in, year out burden of repayments? Are there any proposals of that nature, since they would appear to be necessary in view of our situation?
The Government have been particularly successful in rearranging the profile of our foreign debt in a fashion which ensures that the maturity profile is improved — in other words, the date at which debts have to be repaid is stretched out over a longer and more even period. They have also been successful in shifting from relatively high interest rate loan agreements to those at lower rates of interest. The Irish record in achieving rearrangements of their debt has been notably successful and is recognised as such internationally. That is to the credit of the officers involved.
I cannot accept an assertion to that effect.
It is a true assertion.
Will the Minister make available to the House precise details of how this rescheduling has been effected and precise details of what gain has resulted to the Exchequer? It is not good enough merely to make an assertion without the actual information. Does the Minister propose to make that information, amplifying what he has said, available to the House?
A distinction should be drawn between rescheduling and rearranging a country's debt. Rescheduling is usually engaged in by countries which have some difficulty. This is not what we have done. One must distinguish rescheduling from rearranging the profile of one's debt in the normal commercial way through good commercial dealing.
Semantics.
It is important to make the point in case that word should get into the record. I know Deputy Lenihan did not mean it. I would be quite happy, subject to the limits of commercial prudence, on which I would have to take advice, to make the information available. Perhaps it would be best to make the information available to the Deputy first and we will see whether it might be prudent for us to make it more widely available.
I am not talking politically about one Government or another. Would the Minister not agree that the greatest possible expertise should be introduced into the whole area of borrowing in order to consider where one should borrow and at what time, prevailing and prospective interest rates and a number of other factors? Mistakes have been made but we will leave that aside. Would the Minister not agree that a much higher degree of consultancy or advice is essential in this area of his Department?
We have developed a fairly high degree of expertise in the Department of Finance in this area. I am not sure that bringing in outside consultants, who would tend to have an axe to grind, is the best way of doing it. However, we should be open to any possibility of improving our performance, although I would contend that it has been good up to now.
Would the Minister not agree that some serious mistakes have been made?
Some of the things that were considered to be mistakes did not prove to be mistakes in the medium term, although it may have seemed like that in the short term. I take it the Deputy is referring to borrowings in dollars and so on. When the question is looked at overall I do not think these decisions could be considered mistakes.