asked the Minister for Finance the national debt at the end of 1982, 1983 and 1984 in Irish pound terms; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
14.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Debt.
13.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will give details of the overall amount of the national debt for each of the years 1980 to 1984, inclusive.
15.
asked the Minister for Finance the overall amount of total national debt for each year from 1980 to 1984, inclusive.
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 13, 14 and 15 together.
The national debt figure at the end of each of the years mentioned was: 1980, £7.9 billion; 1981, £10.2 billion; 1982, £12.8 billion; 1983, £15.7 billion; 1984, £18.5 billion.
The figures for the years 1980-1983, inclusive, were published in the Finance Accounts: the figure for 1984 is an estimate made by the Department of Finance.
Is the Minister not concerned that since he came into Government the national debt has increased from £12.8 billion to £18.5 billion, an increase of almost 50 per cent? Is he not concerned that the rate of increase in the national debt in the two years since he came into Government is far in excess of the rate of increase in the national debt in the two years before he came into Government? Finally, is he not concerned that the largest single element in the increase in the national debt in the two years since he came into Government is the increase in the foreign debt, which has gone up in the order of over £3,000 million in the last two years?
I might point out to the Deputy, in case he has not had time to do the figures as yet, that the increase in the national debt, according to the figures I have given, from the end of 1980 to 1982 was £5.1 billion.
It is not — £7.9 billion to £12.8 billion.
I am sorry, £4.9 billion, and from 1982 to 1984 it was £5.7 billion. The increase is composed of a number of factors, the principal one being, first, quite clearly the annual Exchequer borrowing requirement and, second, an adjustment of the figure for debt in foreign currencies to reflect the depreciation of the Irish punt against various currencies on the date of calculation. I might point out that this second component is an arithmetical calculation, that no loss occurs until the redemption date is reached.
In view of the pattern of the increase over the last two years in particular and of the Government's disastrous borrowing policy in dollars, would the Minister be prepared to acknowledge that at the end of this year the figure will certainly exceed £21,000 million? Is the Minister suggesting that these are just paper figures but are not ones that some Government at some time will have to face?
The notional figure for the exchange loss is one that may arise on the maturity date only. The Deputy has also mentioned what he claims to be a substantial shift in policy in relation to the balance between dollars and other currencies. The main reason for the increase in the proportion of our debt expressed in dollars over, let us say, the years 1983 and 1984 has been the strengthening of the dollar against the punt. If no net foreign borrowing had occurred in 1983 and 1984, for example, the effect of exchange rate changes up to the end of 1984 would have been to increase the dollar proportion of our foreign debt, when expressed in punt terms, from 32 per cent to 38 per cent.
It is now 46 per cent.
No, the total proportion of new, net borrowing over the years 1983 and 1984 in dollars was 32.6 per cent less.
Would the Minister not acknowledge that what he has just said — that the dollar now represents 46 per cent of our total Exchequer foreign borrowing in contrast with 29 per cent in Deutsch Marks; it used to be the other way round — underlines the case we have been making for 12 months that he was borrowing in the wrong currency because of the risk of appreciation of the dollar?
The Deputy must confine himself to questions. Obviously that is an argument.
The Minister has chosen to say that it is not because we borrowed extra dollars, rather is it because of the appreciation of the dollar. Would the Minister not acknowledge that that, in itself, underlines the disastrous consequences of the Government's decision to borrow to the extent that they did in dollars as distinct from EMS currencies because of the risk of appreciation?
I am calling Question No. 16.
One should take a good look at Mr. Volcker's eyes and run like hell.
I answered a question for the Deputy on 21 February and I said in that reply that the proportion of dollars in the Exchequer foreign debt had increased from 32 per cent in 1982 to 38 per cent in 1984 while the proportion of Deutsche Marks had declined from 45 per cent to 29 per cent over the same period. As I have just indicated, a part of the influence that the change in the dollar exchange rate has had in that period has been that if no new foreign borrowing had occurred in that period there would still have been an increase in the proportion of the debt denominated in dollars, for the reason I have given, which does not produce a loss until such time as maturity comes about. In addition to that, as I told the Deputy here, I think last May——
When we brought it to the Minister's attention.
——in fact we borrow a greater proportion of our foreign borrowing in EMS currencies than do most of the other EMS countries. I would invite the Deputy to reflect that when one goes borrowing one borrows in currencies that are available. For example, there would be no point in my going out and saying that the exchange risk we will run this year will be less against the escudo than anything else if nobody was willing to lend escudos. The Deputy has failed consistently to pay any attention to that part of the problem.
I am calling Question No. 16.
Is the Minister actually saying that in the last two years our European Community partners — notably the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands and indeed the European Investment Bank itself, from whom we have traditionally borrowed, to the extent that the Deutsche Mark represented 46 per cent of our borrowing over two years ago and now represents something less than 30 per cent, refused to accommodate us in our applications? If so, is that not a demonstration of their lack of confidence in this economy?
I am saying nothing of the kind.
That was the implication. The Minister and his escudos.
The Deputy knows perfectly well that in making that allegation he is just scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something to throw at me. The fact of the matter is that we borrow a greater proportion of our foreign borrowings in EMS currencies than do most other EMS countries. For the Deputy to make this extraordinary statement about the European Investment Bank in this connection is totally irrelevant.
I wish to say at this stage, not in an offensive manner, that Question Time is largely for the benefit of the Opposition and it is being turned into a shambles. We are now at Question No. 16 notwithstanding the fact that we have taken three questions together. There are scores of questions tabled for this Minister ——
You suggested to us that we should approach the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Yes.
Is the Ceann Comhairle not aware that we put forward practical suggestions which were turned down by another party?
The Minister for Finance will still be answering questions here in a fortnight's time.
Is the Chair suggesting that because we spend five minutes — as has just happened — debating the level of increase in our foreign debt to the order of £6,000 million we are making a shambles of Question Time? If so, that is an extraordinary comment from the Chair.
I leave the matter to an independent commentator and I will make the Standing Orders available.
We spent the morning talking about the control of bulls.
Question Time is not the occasion for making speeches and Deputy O'Kennedy should study Standing Orders.