asked the Minister for Finance the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments for each year from 1965 to 1971; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Balance of Payments.
57.
The out-turn on the current account of the balance of payments for each year from 1965 to 1970 was as follows:
|
£ million |
||
|
1965 |
Deficit of |
41.8 |
|
1966 |
Deficit of |
16.1 |
|
1967 |
Surplus of |
15.2 |
|
1968 |
Deficit of |
16.3 |
|
1969 |
Deficit of |
69.1 |
|
1970 |
Deficit of |
65.3 |
No firm figure is as yet available for 1971 but, taking account of the latest trade figures and estimated trends in net invisible receipts, it is likely that there was a balance of payments deficit in 1971 of the same order of magnitude as in 1970. When account is taken of exceptional purchases of ships and aircraft in both years there is expected to have been a sizeable improvement in the balance of payments out-turn in 1971 as compared with 1970.
An indication of the progress achieved in 1971 in the Government's policy of reducing the balance of payments deficit on current account to manageable proportions is the steady improvement in the import excess on merchandise trade in each of the past seven months. The cumulative improvement in this period over the corresponding period of 1970 was £25 million.
I see no reason for excluding exceptional purchases because there will be exceptional purchases every year. It is a continuous process of buying. Would the Minister not agree that in the last three years our balance of payments has shown a shocking trend—minus £69.1 million for 1969, minus £65.3 million for 1970 and minus £65.3 million for 1971. This is a disgraceful financial situation and I do not care what the Minister says. I know what I am speaking about.
I know the Deputy does not care. He has confused the facts. Even though he does not care, there are one or two things I should like to say.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
The Minister to reply. Deputies should allow Question Time to continue. The Minister to reply, please.
With regard to the question of the exclusion of exceptional items, in comparing the two years, 1970 and 1971, when we excluded them, I showed that the underlying trend when you do this is quite favourable in 1971. The reasons for exclusion are fairly well known but they are also fairly lengthy and I do not want to delay the House today but if Deputy Collins would like to put down a question on it I shall give him the reasons why this practice is adopted.
May I ask the Minister whether the favourable comparison is not due to the exceptional out-turn for the month of December and whether his reference to the "steady improvement" leading to this result is not therefore completely misleading?
No, it is spread over a seven-month period.
Would the Minister not agree that a very high proportion of that occurred in December—£10 million improveent in the trade balance in one month alone for exceptional reasons?
£10 million as against what had been estimated.
No, against the previous year.
Is that due to unemployment?
Now, Deputy, please.
I am speaking from recollection, but my recollection is that the exceptional drop in imports, very possibly for the reason Deputy O'Donovan mentions, one month's figure that has led to this——
The Deputy is correct, as compared with December, 1970.
It has not been a steady improvement.
Acting Chairman
Question No. 58.
That is not true. I have said that the cumulative total was £25 million.
"Steady improvement" were the words used.
Yes, and if the Deputy looks at the figures he will find that in the early part of the year the trend was going the wrong way and that over a period of approximately seven months, the last seven months of the year, the trend was the other way. That is more than half the year. What would you call that but a steady improvement?
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
I will allow no more supplementaries on this question.
The Deputy may not like the fact that the figures come out against him but he has to face them.
I do not like facts being hidden.
Would the Minister comment on the out-turn for 1969/70/71 as against the out-turn for 1966/67/68 and tell the House that there has been a big improvement in the balance of payments?
Acting Chairman
There can be no further supplementaries on this question.
I have given the figures.
The Minister certainly has. He is certainly misleading the country now, not the House.
It is the Deputy who is misleading himself. I do not think he is doing this consciously. I think he actually believes what he is saying.
Is there not——
Acting Chairman
There can be no further supplementaries on this question.
Is there not £200 million borrowed in three years? Sinking the country!