asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in the light of the latest trade figures whether he now expects the external deficit for 1969 to be under £60 million as previously indicated by him.
Ceisteanna—Questions, Oral Answers. - External Deficit.
40.
The answer is in the affirmative. Where is Deputy Garret FitzGerald?
(Cavan): Where is the Minister for Justice? He was not here yesterday and he is not here today.
Who asked the question?
I want to suggest that the reason why Deputy Garret FitzGerald is not here is that he thought that the November trade figures——
This is out of order. This is Question Time.
I want to explain something.
Since when has it become the practice for a Minister to ask where is a person who puts down a question?
I want to tell him something. I have some valuable and important information to impart to Deputy Garret FitzGerald, were he here, but as he is not here——
(Cavan): No one is a more conscientious attender of the House.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald hoped that our November trade figures would be bad. That is why he has this question down. Unfortunately for Deputy Garret FitzGerald, but fortunately for the country——
Is it only out of order when somebody in the Opposition tries this nonsense?
It is out of order for Deputy Cluskey to ask such a question. It is typical of Deputy Cluskey to ask such a question.
That is typical of the Chair. It was brought to your notice that it was out of order and you refused to take the appropriate action.
If it was out of order the Chair would know it before Deputy Cluskey.
Is the Minister just guessing or is he stating a fact?
He is replying to a question.
The Minister for Local Government will not answer his own questions.
(Interruptions.)
Order:
I want to say this, a Cheann Comhairle. I will read the question again:
To ask the Minister for Finance if he will state in the light of the latest trade figures whether he now expects the external deficit for 1969 to be under £60 million as previously indicated by him.
It is quite clear from that question that Deputy Garret FitzGerald knew that the November trade figures——
(Cavan): On a point of order, is it in order for a Minister to enter into an argument in reply to a question?
I am not entering into an argument.
I do not think the Minister is entering into any argument.
(Cavan): With the greatest respect to the Chair, would the Chair then tell me what the Minister is doing?
He is replying to a question.
I am replying to a question and I am explaining my answer. It is quite clear from the way in which the question was put that Deputy Garret FitzGerald knew the November trade figures would be out by today. He thought they would be bad and he put the question down on that basis but, to the dismay of Deputy Garret FitzGerald——
On a point of order, surely the imputation of motives to Deputy Garret FitzGerald is out of order?
The Chair is not responsible for Ministerial replies. It is a matter for the Minister.
Unfortunately for Deputy Garret FitzGerald, but fortunately for the country, our November trade figures were excellent and therefore the question has misfired completely.
That is why he did not come in.
Who asked the question?
(Cavan): Where is the Minister for Justice?
Did the Minister not state in the Dáil this morning——
Here is the latest Daniel come to judgment.
What did the Minister say?
A Daniel come to judgment. What has the Deputy to say?
On a point of order, what type of remark did the Minister make?
I said here is the latest Daniel come to judgment. Shakespeare. Merchant of Venice.
Happy Christmas.
On a point of order, is it in keeping that you should allow the Minister for Finance——
To quote Shakespeare?
——to snipe at Deputies.
Who asked the question?
If it is in order we can go to the firing line too.
I understand the Minister was paying a compliment.
I recognise your sense of humour.
Does the Minister agree that he said this morning that the balance of payments could be £60 million in deficit? Would the Minister tell me when the balance of payments went into a deficit of £60 and over?
£60?
£60 million.
The last serious deficit in the balance of payments was when the Coalition Government were in office and when they panicked.
The Minister certainly was at a party last night. He is still suffering from the effects.
Was the figure not £35½ million? If the figure the Minister gave was serious, how serious then is the figure of £60 million?
Trade has gone up since then and the £60 million figure becomes terribly serious.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Minister agree that the question is still valid until the end of the year? Is it not a possibility?
Deputy FitzGerald hoped that the November figures would be bad and that is why he asked the question.
The question still stands.
They are the November figures.
Both the Minister and Deputy FitzGerald were guessing.
Could I have an answer to my supplementary?
I feel I should explain. At the time of the Budget I made an estimate that the balance of payments deficit this year would be £55 million. That figure is still valid and it is almost certain that the balance of payments deficit this year will be under £60 million. Deputy FitzGerald is terribly disappointed at that because he would love to have a really serious balance of payments deficit.
The Minister is not so certain himself. He said he was almost certain.
It will be under £60 million.
Question No. 41.
Could I invite the Minister to postpone this question for a short while and Deputy FitzGerald will deal with it when he arrives?
Where is he?
He was delayed on important business.
I have already dealt with the question.
The question cannot be postponed. Question No. 41.
I notice that this question is in the name of Deputy O.J. Flanagan.
Who is going to ask it?
I will ask it.