asked the Minister for Finance the forecasted current budget deficit for 1982.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Budget Deficit and Exchequer Borrowing.
1.
Mr. Treacy
Mr. Treacy
asked the Minister for Finance the forecasted total Exchequer borrowing requirement for 1982.
Clare): I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
As indicated in my Financial Statement on 25 March last, the projected current budget deficit for 1982 is £679 million while the projected total Exchequer borrowing requirement is £1,683 million.
Will the Minister confirm what the Taoiseach said on television, namely, that there have been overshoots in expenditure in certain important areas and, unless these are matched by revenue or cuts elsewhere, the deficit targets to which he referred cannot be met? Can he confirm that such overshoots exist and will he state what measure he proposes to take to cope with the effect they will have on the current budget deficit?
(Clare): The £45 million for the PRSI would be considered as part of what the Deputy is referring to. By revising in the Estimates that will be identified——
No, that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to a statement made by the Taoiseach on television in which he referred to overshoots in expenditure as distinct from concessions in taxation which had been identified by him at that time, that is, about a week ago. I am asking the Minister if he will confirm in this House what the Taoiseach said on television about overshoots in expenditure, and if he will further indicate how they will affect the figures he has just quoted and the action it is proposed to take to meet them. If he can tell us that much, can he also tell us the extent of the overshoots in expenditure to which the Taoiseach referred?
(Clare): I accept that the Taoiseach said it if the Deputy says he was listening to it. I accept also that it must be correct if he said it. I am not aware of their extent. I cannot give the Deputy that information. I am sure the Deputy will hope at least that increased buoyancy during the remainder of the year might help to correct such overshoots.
Are the Department of Finance, on whose behalf the Minister is speaking, aware of the overshoots referred to by the Taoiseach? It is surprising that the Minister is not aware of them if the Taoiseach referred to them on television.
(Clare): I have no doubt that if the Taoiseach is aware of them the Department of Finance are aware of them.
Is the Minister? He is not.
(Clare): I have not got that information with me.
What is the point of Question Time?
Would the Minister agree that the deficit, which is now £684 million, or 102 per cent of the year's deficit in six months, by the end of December is forecast internally in the Department of Finance to be around £950 million, and that there may be some additional revenue in the final quarter?
(Clare): When the Deputy says “internally” I am not quite sure what he means.
Derived from opinion.
(Clare): Opinions expressed privately.
The Minister for Finance is on the record.
The Minister is well aware that at this stage of the year the Department of Finance would be entirely remiss if they were not aware of a forecast figure for the end of a third quarter. On the basis of what has happened to date——
Is the Deputy asking a question?
Is the Minister satisfied that it will be £950 million by the end of September, and the December figure will be in the region of £900 million? There will be some recovery, but it will not dip below about £880 million to £900 million for 1982. Does the Minister accept those figures?
(Clare): No, I would not accept them because it is far too difficult to forecast the extent of the buoyancy for the latter half of the year. That is when you really have buoyancy. It must be remembered also that the late budget this year was not helpful. In answer to the Deputy's question, at this stage of the year I would not accept his figures.
I have three or four little questions.
Would you ask one?
If it was all that easy for the Minister for Finance to forecast £45 million buoyancy on 25 March, surely it should be that much more easy for him three months further on to make an even more accurate pinpointing forecast of the buoyancy by the end of the year. Why has the difficulty become aggravated rather than diminished?
(Clare): As long as I have been in this House, each year at budget time forecasts were made. Later in the year, hopefully, the buoyancy would be up, as is usual in the latter half of the year.
Would the Minister not——
I am calling Deputy J. Bruton.
I am not finished.
I am calling Deputy J. Bruton.
Will the Minister reconcile his own statement that it is far too difficult to forecast buoyancy for the latter half of the year with the fact that in his original reply he has done precisely that? He could not have reached the current budget deficit figure without having an extremely optimistic forecast for buoyancy for the last three months of the year.
(Clare): There is no question at this stage of revising the figure given last March.
Will the Minister accept that the returns available for the first six months of this year show that far from there being a buoyancy there has been a sinking of the deficit and revenue, notably in the Post Office, tourism receipts and income tax receipts, which are already available and were published last week? In that context, it showed a negative return of around £55 million to £60 million——
That is a statement. A question please, Deputy.
Would the Minister not accept that his confidence about buoyancy in the latter half of the year is without foundation?
(Clare): It is not unusual to have vast differences between the figures for the first and second halves of any financial year. As I said, the upturn usually comes in the second half of the year. This year's budget was not introduced until March; it is usually introduced in January.
In view of the fact that——
I am calling Deputy FitzGerald.
I am disappointed.
If I can move the Minister a little beyond the statement that buoyancy of revenue means it will be up — something the House could work out for itself — is it not the case that there are in his Department, and kept up to date throughout the year, forecasts of the likely outcome and the forecasts available to the Minister indicate what is thought probable at any moment in time? What figure now emerges in the view of the officials of the Department of Finance of the likely deficit at the end of the year as distinct from any politically motivated figure put forward here? Does the Minister not think, in the interests of the general good of the Dáil and the Government, that it would be better to start coming clean at this stage rather than to continue with the pretence that there will not be a heavy over-run and then have to face reality at the end of the year which does nobody, and particularly the Government, any good?
(Clare): With regard to the forecasts Deputy FitzGerald mentioned, if they are available as he seems to think, I will make them available to him or to the House, whichever he prefers.
Thank you.
In view of the fact that Deputy Treacy who put down these questions is well able to read for himself and can see the figures given in the budget statement last March does the Minister not appreciate that what Deputy Treacy was looking for, and what we would like to hear, are the up-to-date forecasts? Leaving aside all questions of overshoots and the buoyancy for which we are all waiting, this fact is bound to make the figures given by the Minister out of date ——
No speeches, please.
The rise in unemployment ——
No speeches, please. You must ask a question.
There are three Deputies on the far side of the House over whose heads I can see balloons floating with these questions——
I am calling Question No. 3.