asked the Minister for Finance the percentage by which the Exchequer's cumulative foreign debt increased between March 1973 and June 1977 and between July 1977 and June 1981.

The information requested by the Deputy is as follows: at end-March 1973 the foreign debt outstanding was IR£126.4 million; by end-June 1977 it had risen to IR£1,013 million — an increase of approximate 701.4 per cent — not a very appropriate figure. Between July 1977 and June 1981, debt outstanding increased from IR£1,013 million to IR£2,957 million — an increase of approximately 191.9 per cent.

The Minister will acknowledge that in terms of percentage increase the figure has increased almost eightfold and that the increase in percentage rates was threefold from 1977 to 1981. Does the Minister agree with the view that heavy borrowing for growing current and capital deficits is a good response to the economic situation facing us at the moment?

I am not sure the second part of the question arises. From March 1973 to June 1977 the foreign debt increased by more than £800 million and from June 1977 the increase was roughly 701 per cent. As I said, the second part of the Deputy's question does not arise. Of course, foreign borrowing is one of the measures that must be used by any Government to cover particular kinds of difficulties likely to arise. The question is the scale of the borrowing and the advisability to continue a high rate of borrowing.

Does the Minister agree that heavy foreign borrowing to finance growing current as well as capital deficits would be desirable?

I would agree with that, but the Deputy will find that that opinion is very amply reflected in this year's budgetary strategy.

Does this not represent a sharp departure from the Minister's predecessor in the first Coalition who in his budget statement of 1977 indicated that heavy borrowing to finance growing current deficit as well as capital spending was not the correct economic response to the economic situation facing us? I take it the Minister will disagree with that?

I was not in the House when that statement was made. The statement was made in the context——

This is an argument.

It is important that I get it clear that there has been a change of attitude since that statement in 1977.

That does not seem to arise from the Deputy's question, which was factual.

A suitable occasion will present itself to tease this out.

Foreign borrowing between 1977 and 1981, in absolute terms, was many times greater than what we saw between 1973 and 1977.

Will the Minister arrange to make available for Deputy O'Kennedy a simple briefing from the Department that statistical illegitimacy of comparing the two figures, which the Minister has been invited to consider——

We are getting into a debate and into argument. Question No. 12.

Because of the phenomenon of the low starting base, would the Deputy not regard it as the more credible performance to have kept the increase in gross foreign borrowing, in a period of more than four years——

The Deputy is making an argument and I am calling on the Minister to answer Question No. 12.

Order.

Would the Minister get Deputy O'Kennedy one of these little brochures in large print?

My answer to Deputy Kelly's supplementary is yes.