asked the Minister for Finance the national debt at 31 December 1977 and 1980; and if he will explain the reason for the increase.

The national debt at 31 December 1977 was £4,229 million. The figure is provisionally estimated at £7,900 million at end 1980.

The reason for the increase is the borrowings undertaken by the Government to finance the capital budgets.

How much of the increase is accounted for by the current deficits incurred in the budgets of these years adding to deadweight national debt and having nothing to do with investment?

I do not have that figure.

Then why does the Minister make the statement that the whole of this was in fact attributable to investment when he knows perfectly well that something between £1,000 million and £1,500 million was attributable to current account deficits and had nothing to do with investment? Why does he seek to mislead the House on that point?

The Minister never seeks to mislead the House.

He has just done so and failed.

Does the Minister understand the question?

Yes.

I doubt it.

Would the House please allow Deputy Quinn to ask a supplementary?

I presume the Minister read the answers before he came into the House. Would he accept that, of the approximate doubling of the size of the national debt, a portion of it came from current account deficits which by definition cannot be used for productive purposes? Therefore, the second part of his reply, whether he deliberately wants it to be so or otherwise, is in fact misleading to the House and out of character with the Minister's normal performance in the Chamber?

The Deputy is aware that the capital budget has been increased significantly. The Deputy and indeed all Deputies have been looking for extra work and extra capital for various funds. The House will have to make a decision as to whether it wants work done or borrowing stopped.

Ceist 16.

The Minister has misled the House.

While the Minister has in fact misled the House, in fairness to the Minister, I think it was unintentional——

The Deputy should not accuse the Minister of misleading the House.

Unintentionally, I have said. It is a perfectly proper charge. I know it was unintentional. He was unaware of the fact, but I think the Minister must be given a chance to put the record right.

I am sorry. I have called the next question.

He was straying from his notes. I am sure the civil service would not make a blunder of that kind.

I am sorry. We cannot have a debate on this question. Ceist 16.

He should be given a chance to put the record right. Question Time has become pointless.