asked the Minister for Finance the proportion of the public sector borrowing requirement likely to be financed externally in 1981; and the comparable figure for 1976.

The distribution of borrowings in 1981 between domestic and foreign will be decided from time to time having regard to the Exchequer's financing needs, sales of domestic securities and the position of the external reserves. In 1976, 60 per cent of the public sector borrowing requirement was financed externally. This percentage takes account of foreign currency borrowings by the Exchequer and State bodies as well as sales of Government securities denominated in Irish pounds to non-residents.

Why is the Minister of State at this stage not in a position to give an estimate of the likely percentage of funds to be borrowed abroad during 1981? Would he not agree that it would be appropriate that he should at least have a target figure?

I have not got any information for the Deputy on that. The distribution between domestic and foreign borrowing is decided from time to time. At the moment I have not got a figure that I can give the Deputy.

Would the Minister of State agree that it is absolutely essential that we have a target for the amount we borrow abroad in view of the very substantial exchange losses, running into almost £100 million as disclosed in reply to a question from Deputy Browne yesterday, as a result of our borrowing in currencies which appreciate against our currency, and that it is a separate matter of economic policy that we have a target to reduce the amount of foreign borrowing so as to diminish the potential loss on this front?

The sky is the limit, apparently.

As the Deputy knows, the level of foreign borrowing is determined by many factors including the need to maintain an adequate level of external reserves.

Is the Minister of State aware that an extremely short-term method of enhancing external reserves is to borrow abroad and by so doing one is taking a very grave risk with the future of this country as a result of the fact that if our currency depreciates against the currency against which we are borrowing money we will suffer massive exchange losses? We are jeopardising our future by the way in which the Government are now borrowing abroad ——

This is argumentative, Deputy. Deputy Desmond.

It is also high level.

Is the Minister seriously coming into this House without any information in his brief from his Department as to the level of external borrowing for 1981? Bearing in mind that we are now two months into that financial year, surely the level of projected foreign borrowing for the State deficit and the State-sponsored sector is known and is available in the Economic Division of the Department of Finance. I suggest that the Minister is aware that the information is already available and has been stated in other areas, in the Central Bank reports and in terms of projection and that, therefore, whoever gave him the brief made a rather inadequate public service response.

It is not the Public Service, it is the Department of Finance.

I am talking about the public service generally.

It would be too embarrassing to have——

I have no information in my brief as to the possible balance between domestic and foreign borrowing——

In reply to Deputy Bruton, who has expressed some concern, the level of foreign borrowing in 1976 was 60 per cent and the level last year was also only 60 per cent——

In view of the Minister's statement that the level of foreign borrowing is determined in part by the need to maintain our reserves, by how much now are our official external reserves exceeded by the amount involved abroad? How much are we in debt net abroad at this stage?

I have not got that information. Of course we are anxious to keep foreign borrowing as low as possible but when it is used to build up the productive capacity of the economy it is not, in my view, a drain on the country because it generates the funds that are needed to serve it——

There is £550 million budget deficit. What is productive about that?

The growth rate has dropped from 6 per cent to 1 per cent.

In view of the precedent established in this House last Wednesday when the Taoiseach was unable to make a decision and adjourned the House, would I be in order, Sir, in asking you if the House could adjourn until such a time as the Minister of State, who has a democratic responsibility——

Ceist 5. The Deputy would not be in order.

Why not? The Minister of State is paid to do a job. Why is the information not in the brief? He is misleading the House——

On a point of order——

Would the Minister please answer Ceist 5?

I have a point of order.

A point of order, yes.

This is not Question Time, this is inquisition time.

I want to raise a point of order. I came into the House specifically to do this and I was about to do so when Deputy Quinn raised the subject. Is there a precedent for a situation where when a Minister cannot be available to answer questions himself and his Minister of State who is present in the House does not answer those question——

The Deputy is totally out of order.

Why is the Minister not answering questions?

I am asking the Deputy to please resume his seat.

I am making a protest.