asked the Minister for Finance if he will indicate the basis and criteria examined by his Department in determining the correlation between the growth of consumer debt and the rate of inflation.

As I stated in reply to the Deputy's question on 21st November, there is no identifiable correlation of the kind suggested in the question.

The latest available statistics show that in June last total hire purchase and other instalment credit outstanding amounted to £118.3 million, an increase of 12 per cent since December, 1971. It has been estimated that about 60 per cent of total instalment credit relates directly to personal consumption. Advances by the Associated Banks to personal borrowers totalled £113 million at mid-August, 1972, an increase of 28 per cent since mid-February, 1972. It is not known what proportion of this lending would be spent on consumer goods.

The increase in consumer credit this year reflects recovery from a relatively low level of activity in 1971 and the removal of certain hire purchase restrictions last year. There is no evidence that the increase in credit is giving rise to excessive consumer expenditure. The causes of the present inflation are excessive cost pressures and external factors.

Surely there must be some co-efficient of correlation between the increase in consumer debt and the inflation?

No, there is no identifiable correlation.

Did the Minister not get some civil servant to work it out?

If the Deputy means that one could work out that there is a proportion between two unconnected figures of such and such and such— if that is what he means——

The Deputy said "correlation".

I have said that there is no correlation on a number of occasions but in case the Deputy means something else, I am trying——

I am talking about correlation which is normally worked out as a co-efficient. Is the Minister really telling this House that no co-efficient of correlation between the increase in the consumer debt and the inflation——

I am saying there is no correlation.

All I can say is that the Minister knows nothing at all about it, nothing whatever.

Is the Minister aware of the work of the Social and Economic Research Institute on that point?

The Minister must have very little respect for the House to make a reply of that kind.

The Deputy, of course, knows so much about it that he can afford to say that.

He knows more than the Minister.

The Minister obviously knows nothing.