asked the Minister for Finance the totals in round millions of receipts and expenditure for the first three months of 1981; how these figures compare with (a) the corresponding figures for last year and (b) his budget forecast on 28 January 1981 as to the increase in State expenditure in 1981.

12.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he has made any assessment of the factors contributing to the overspending by the Government in the first three months of this year; whether he intends taking any corrective action to prevent a greater departure from the current borrowing target set out in the budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

13.

asked the Minister for Finance the Government Departments that over spent in the first three months of 1981; and the reasons for overexpenditure.

14.

asked the Minister for Finance the figures for expenditure for the first quarter of 1981; and how these compare with the budget forecasts.

15.

asked the Minister for Finance the figures for receipts for the first quarter of 1981; and how these compare with the budget forecasts.

16.

asked the Minister for Finance if the Government's income and expenditure for the first quarter of 1981 are in line with budgetary predictions.

17.

asked the Minister for Finance the steps he proposes to take to ensure that the budget deficit does not exceed the £515 million allowed for in the budget.

18.

asked the Minister for Finance to what extent, if any, he would now revise the targets and estimates contained in his budget statement of 28 January 1981.

19.

asked the Minister for Finance whether, to his knowledge, any Department is at present engaged in the preparation of a Supplementary Estimate.

I propose with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 11 to 19, inclusive, together.

The 1981 Current Budget provides for total revenue receipts of £3,815 million. Actual receipts for the first three months of the year amounted to £871 million, that is, 22.8 per cent of budget. The corresponding percentage received in the first three months of 1980 was 23.7 per cent. The lower percentage of total receipts in the first three months of 1981 is due to the fact that certain revenue receipts delayed by the 1979 Post Office dispute were received in the first quarter of 1980, to the 1980 change in the dates of payment of income tax by the self-employed, to the full-year effects of the substantial income tax concessions introduced in the 1980 Budget which applied from April 1980 and to the fact that the increased revenue arising from the 1981 Budget changes will be received mainly in the remaining nine months of the year.

On the expenditure side, the 1981 Current Budget provides for total spending of £4,330 million, of which £960 million is for Central Fund Services and £3,370 million for the non-capital supply services. Actual expenditure on Central Fund Services in the first three months of the year was £264 million or 27½ per cent of the annual provision. This compares with 20.2 per cent spent in the first quarter of 1980 and an average of 26½ per cent for the first quarter of the previous two years. The higher than average percentage spent in the first quarter of the present year was entirely due to the technical timing of issues to the capital services redemption account.

In the case of the non-capital supply services, expenditure in the first three months of the year amounted to £812 million or 24.1 per cent of total budget. The percentage spent in the corresponding period last year was 22.6 per cent. The previous five year average was 23 per cent. The percentage spent in the first three months of the current year was affected by technical factors which render it difficult to make comparisons with previous years.

One major factor, for example, which distorts any comparison between this year and last arises in the case of the Health Vote, where a sizeable pay award, including substantial arrears extending back to 1979, was paid to nurses subsequent to the end of March 1980, with the result that the 1980 March quarter expenditure was artificially low.

The 1981 Budget provision for Exchequer-financed capital expenditure, including non-programme outlays, is £1,163 million, of which £273 million — 23½ per cent — was spent in the first quarter of the year. There is no established pattern for capital expenditure since it depends largely on dates contracts are signed, progress made on various projects, weather conditions, and so on. The first quarter percentages spent in the previous four years varied from 17 per cent to 28 per cent of the total budget. The Exchequer returns for the first quarter of the year, therefore, do not support the implications in the questions that there has been a departure from budgetary targets.

Supplementary Estimates will, of course, be required to implement the social welfare increases contained in the budget and the recently announced housing and farming packages.

What about the recently announced food subsidies?

I am sorry?

What about the recently announced food subsidies?

Regarding Supplementary Estimates? At this stage, I would hope that the buoyancy generated as a result of increased economic activity will go a long way towards paying for those subsidies. If they do require Supplementary Estimates, of course they will then have to be introduced.

Buoyancy from the Supplementary Estimates.

Would the Minister tell the House, in a few key sentences, what indexes or signs he sees of improved economic activity since he delivered his budget three months ago?

In fact, I can produce evidence for the Deputy, although it is not in his question. I will give it to him on the industrial——

Please, let me finish. I will give it to him on the industrial output, building activity, interest in tourism generally. I can assure the Deputy that if he only opens his eyes in his own area he will find evidence everywhere of an upturn in activity in our economy.

Could the Minister explain how this upturn in economic activity is accompanied by a rise in seasonally adjusted unemployment in the month of April of just short of 2,000?

That is a very understandable situation. The Deputy must realise too that obviously during the deep recession through which we have gone it is understandable that there must be considerable upturn before the figures begin to really show on the employment register. For example, a good factor which the Deputy may have noticed is the cut-down on short-term unemployment. That indicates the truth of what I am telling the House.

Did the Minister not say——

Most of the short-term workers are now completely unemployed.

Did the Minister not say a moment ago——

The Minister is confusing Question Time with the Happy Hour.

Please, please. Deputy Kelly, a supplementary, please.

Did the Minister not a few moments ago mention house building as one of the few areas in which he saw signs of an upturn? Did he not mention building?

No. I mentioned building. I did not mention house building.

Building, very well. Is it not well established that an upturn in building is instantly reflected in an improvement in the employment register?

Exactly.

I am sorry?

Is it not a well known fact, which should even have penetrated the Minister's Department, that an upturn in building activity is instantly reflected in an improvement in employment?

Of course, Deputy.

Why then has unemployment risen by 2,000 in the month of April?

What I am saying is that it takes some time to reflect itself in improved figures.

Not in the building industry.

No.

Yes.

No.

Already the indicators are that, even there, in some areas where there was short-time working in builders' providers, that is no longer the case. That is obvious evidence that in that particular area short-time working has dropped and dropped substantially.

Would the Minister not agree that, accepting Government expenditure on the basis of the figures he has given here, expenditure for the first quarter is fully stretched? What provision has now been made by the Minister for the second quarter, for the food subsidy provision, for the new house grants announced, for the environmental moneys announced by the Minister for the Environment, for increased social welfare payments, which are continuing at a high rate due to the high level of unemployment, and for the additional capital moneys required by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs—all of which must be reflected by at least an additional 25 to 30 per cent of expenditure in the second quarter and if any provision has been made for that in the current budget?

As I said earlier when replying to this question, there are many factors which affect or distort figures for any particular quarter. I, like any predecessor of mine, would not be prepared to take any quarter in isolation from the whole year. Some of the items mentioned by the Deputy in his question are, of course, covered in the budget arithmetic. For others which he mentioned — for example, the subsidies which have been introduced — I supported the reasons for their introduction. I said that some would, of course, require Supplementary Estimates but I would hope that the upturn in activity and also the buoyancy of the revenue generated by that upturn would contribute towards the provision of these subsidies.

Would the Minister not accept that the £515 million budget deficit, budgeted without those items at the commencement of the year, is now without question going to be at least £700 million at the year end, no matter how buoyant——

£800 million.

—the revenue expectations may be? Even if revenue expectations go from 23 per cent to 30 per cent, arising largely out of tourism — and I accept the Minister's argument on that point, because there has been an upturn there — would the Minister not accept that we are now facing a budget deficit of £700 million, largely because of the measures decided in Barrettstown Castle, and in other areas of capital moneys?

No, I would not accept that under any circumstances. Under no circumstances could I accept that with four months of the year gone——

Five months have gone. We are now in the fifth month.

The fifth month is just commencing. There is no way that I can accept what the Deputy says. I take it that the Deputy is saying that we should not have increased food subsidies?

I am saying that no matter what computation one takes —whether one takes the recently accepted increase in public expenditure in relation to, say, Garda pay, if I might add in another relevant area where the Minister had to concede further additional moneys, or any of the other moneys announced by various Ministers—no matter what way one computes it, one is adding £200 million to the current estimated budget deficit of £515 million and that this is an indication that the Minister's budget is in a total and absolute shambles, with respect to a fellow Corkman?

I suspect that the——

And that it is nonexistent at this stage?

Is the Deputy being mischievous? That is not like him.

Never mind the old guff, give the House the answer.

If I may continue, please.

The Minister's own party was founded by——

Please, allow the Minister to reply, Deputy.

If I may continue— if the Deputy is not being mischievous— it is unlike Deputy Desmond not to have done his homework. To take one item which Deputy Desmond mentioned, for example, Garda pay, he will recall——

In the totality of items.

I have already dealt with some of them. For example, regarding Garda pay, there was provision in the budget for public sector pay.

May I ask the Minister——

Please, we are tending to enter into an argument on this question. Deputy Bruton, a question, please.

Into fallacy.

In respect of Question No. 17, is it the Minister's intention to adhere to the budget projection of a deficit of £515 million for the end of the year and is he confident that he can adhere to this projection and at the same time pay for the additional housing grants, farm package and the food subsidies without having recourse to taxation?

It is my intention to adhere to that budget target of £515 million. I accept that the introduction of the measures referred to by the Deputy may cause some slippage but I believe that the extra revenue generated will help to pay for those improvements. However, the kind of figure mentioned by Deputy Desmond is ludicrous.

What will be the amount of the Supplementary Estimates necessary in respect of the housing grants, in respect of the farm package and in respect of the consumer subsidies?

And to these amounts will have to be added the £1,000 grants that have not been paid out.

In reply to Deputy Bruton, it would be impossible to say at this stage what the figures will be. But if the buoyancy in revenue is good enough there may not be any increase needed, though for purely administrative reasons there are some that require Supplementary Estimates anyway.

Is the Minister aware——

We must pass on to the next question.

——that additional revenue does not affect the necessity for Supplementary Estimates? If the Minister has any knowledge of financial procedure, he will know that to be the case.

That is exactly what I said.

Has the Minister any estimate of the amount that will be necessary by way of Supplementary Estimates? If he has any such estimate, is he not being irresponsible in not telling us the cost?

At this stage I would not be in a position to say what amounts might be necessary but I have told the Deputy that Supplementary Estimates would have to be introduced. I did not even say that there might be a cost factor. I said that some Supplementary Estimates would be necessary in any case for administrative purposes.

We must move on to the next question.

There are nine questions involved here.

That is so, but they are dealing more or less with the same subject.

Leaving aside the fallacy of what the Minister said about Supplementary Estimates and the buoyancy in revenue, two matters that have nothing to do with each other, can he tell us on what basis he is working when he speaks of buoyancy in the construction sector and in manufacturing industry, given on the one hand the statements made to us within the past few weeks by the Construction Industry Federation that no new public contracts have been entered into anywhere in the country, despite the alleged investment programme which so far as they can ascertain does not exist? Regarding the industrial sector, how can the Minister reconcile his reference to buoyancy with the fact that the monthly industrial production index shows a continuing decline vis-á-vis last year and has done so right up to the publication of the latest figures?

First, regarding the CIF, I am not aware of the statement to which the Deputy refers. Was it a public statement?

No. It was a statement made by them in discussions with us during which an attempt was made to discover whether any new contracts had been entered into by the Government in any part of the country.

I do not know to whom the Deputy may have been talking in the CIF or at what level those talks took place.

They were at the highest level.

I assure the Deputy that I can even point to contracts that have been placed in many parts of the country and that consequently the statement he is making is incorrect.

Can the Minister name one such contract?

I will name many.

Can the Minister answer the second part of my question?

As I said earlier, the upturn is evident and I can produce figures for the earlier months of this year which show an improved performance by industry. I am satisfied that that situation will not only continue but will improve during the year.

In a situation in which the index has declined month by month compared with last year, where is the evidence of improvement?

Has the Deputy seen the January 1981 figures?

I have seen the figures right up to the latest ones available and these show a decline compared with the previous year.

But has the Deputy seen the January figures?

I have seen the figures right up to the latest ones published. Perhaps the Minister has figures that I do not have.

We must move on to the next question.