asked the Minister for Finance the percentage by which the Irish púnt was devalued against the EMS rate; and the increase in the cumulative foreign debt in all world currencies and in interest payments for the rest of 1983.

13.

asked the Minister for Finance the increase in the Government borrowing requirement this year, including the increase in the total foreign debt as a result of devaluation; and if he will express this as a percentage of GNP.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together.

As I indicated in my statement to the Dáil on 22 March on the outcome of the EMS realignment, the agreed change in the central rate of the Irish pound against the ECU was a reduction of 3.5 per cent. The Irish pound value of the total Exchequer foreign currency debt outstanding on 21 March 1983 was increased by £276 million as a result of the realignment while estimated foreign interest payments for the remainder of 1983 were increased by £17 million.

As I said in my statement to the House on 22 March, the Government are determined that any increase in debt servicing costs this year will not be allowed to affect the overall budgetary arithmetic and we will closely monitor the trends in the public finances as a whole with a view to taking any necessary action to achieve the budget targets.

Will the Minister note the difference in the figures between the time of devaluation, when the figure he gave was £250 million, and the later figure of £276 million? He will acknowledge there is a difference in the figure he is now quoting and that given on the date of devaluation. Allowing for that difference, what will the impact be on the budget deficit as a percentage of GNP? In his budget statement the Minister indicated that the opening borrowing requirement was more than £2,000 million, which would have been 16.8 per cent. Then he indicated that as a consequence of his budget it would be £1,722 million, or 13 per cent. Would the Minister now acknowledge that as a consequence of devaluation it will be closer to the original figure and that therefore the budget estimates have been driven off target?

On the first part of the Deputy's question I repeat that the figures I have given, £276 million and £17 million are the figures I gave on 22 March in this House. The Deputy is well aware that on an occasion like the realignment meeting, or any other EEC Council meeting, immediately following a decision the effects of decisions taken will necessarily be approximate and therefore take some more time to work out. The Deputy is not on firm ground when he makes particular points on the difference between £250 million and £276 million in circumstances of that nature. As far as the effect of these developments on the current budget deficit is concerned, I have made the point that the Government are determined that the increase in servicing costs will not be allowed to affect the overall budgetary arithmetic and that we will be reviewing trends in public finances on the whole to ensure that the budget target will be adhered to.

Though the Minister may find it blandly reassuring to say that the Government are determined that they will not yield from the overall budget arithmetic, will he tell us how he intends to give effect to that bland reassurance having regard to the impact which this will have on overall budget arithmetic and having regard to the statement by the Minister for Health, for example, that the Estimates for the Department will be well in excess of the original Estimate? In view of that, how can the Minister make the point by way of bland reassurance that the overall budget arithmetic will not be upset?

The issue is not in any way bland. It is evident that a trend of this kind will have to be corrected and the measures taken to bring about that correction will be anything but bland. As the Deputy will appreciate, I am not in a position now to say what the measures will be.

If at this stage trends in public expenditure as a consequence of this decision — the growth in the health Estimate, for instance, beyond what was projected — are clearly running ahead of the Minister's public expenditure targets, will the Minister tell us when and how he proposes to curtail and curb those trends? There has been no evidence of any action up to this point.

The Deputy need not worry himself unduly.

It is the nation that is worried.

I assure the Deputy that measures will be taken.

Does the Minister agree with me that Irish foreign borrowing will be repaid largely in goods and services sold abroad, and therefore that the effect of devaluation on our ability to repay will be greatly reduced? Out ability to pay will be greatly reduced by the fact that we will be earning more £s for goods and services sold abroad, and particularly agricultural goods. Therefore the difficulty about repayments arising out of devaluation is not nearly as serious as it would appear to be.

It does appear serious.

I agree with the general thrust of the Deputy's remarks. There is already evidence that the devaluation which resulted from the realignment and from events since then, is having a positive effect on the capacity of our exporting firms to make progress. To that extent, there should be a positive effect on revenue to the State over a wide area. The effect of a devaluation of this kind properly worked out and taken advantage of by our exporting firms and those competing with imports is not universally negative. Deputy O'Kennedy asked a specific question to which a specific answer can be given. The arrangements for dealing with those differences have to be considered in the light of trends in the economy as a result, among other things, of the beneficial effects of the devaluation.

Does that suggest a supplementary budget?

I am calling the next question. Ceist 14.

14.

asked the Minister for Finance the amounts of (a) Exchequer borrowing, (b) borrowing by semi-State agencies and (c) the total public sector borrowing requirement; and if he will express these as a percentage of GNP in tabular form in respect of each year since 1973, including an estimate for 1983, which will take into account the increase in the foreign debt as a result of devaluation.

A Cheann Comhairle, it is with some trepidation that I point out that the reply is in the form of a tabular statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report.

Following is the Statement:

Ceist 15.

The Minister is answering Question No. 14?

We are moving on to No. 15. The answer to Question No. 14 was in the form of a tabular statement with no trimmings. I suggest that the Deputy should not ask any supplementaries.

I cannot ask a supplementary question if I do not have the information.

It will drift into a number of questions.

Will the improvement in the Exchequer borrowing requirement be at the expense generally of the overall public sector borrowing requirement which has been growing? The percentages are always expressed——

I am ruling that out of order. We cannot have a supplementary question to a question which has not been answered.

It has been answered.

It was answered in the form of a tabular statement.

Does that mean we cannot ask any questions if the reply is in the form of a tabular statement?

I am asking for the Deputy's co-operation.

I am anxious to co-operate with the Chair. This is not argumentative. It would concern any Minister for Finance, not just the present Minister. Do the figures show that the improvement, such as it may be, in the Exchequer borrowing requirement as a percentage of GNP is, in a sense, at the expense of a disimprovement in the public sector borrowing requirement?

That is a separate Question.

It is not. That is what I asked about.

I should like to give the Deputy the information which he will be able to read from the tables. I will give him the bottom line of the tables. The total Exchequer borrowing requirement for 1982 was £1,945 million for 1983, £1,722. That is the budget estimate. The semi-State sector borrowing requirement was £521 million for 1982 and £664 million for 1983. Total public sector borrowing requirement was £2,466 in 1982 as against £2,386 million in 1983 with an increasing total for semi-State sector borrowing.

That is the point.

15.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will express Ireland's interest payments and repayments of principal on foreign debt as a percentage of export earnings from 1973 to 1982, with an estimate for 1983.

Again a Cheann Comhairle, the reply is in the form of a tabular statement and, given your ruling, I will not make any further remarks about it.

Following is the statement:

Will what is contained in that tabular statement indicate — it probably will — that the debt service and repayments as a percentage of exports will be of the order of about 20 per cent to 25 per cent in 1983? Obviously that compares very favourably with places already mentioned here — over 50 per cent for countries such as Poland, Mexico and Brazil. I take it the Minister will acknowledge that?

The text that goes with the tabular statement states that it is difficult at this stage to make a definitive forecast for 1983 but the figure for this year will show a considerable decrease from the 1982 figure.

The Minister will recall that Deputy McCartin asked——

The Chair does not want to rule Deputy O'Kennedy out of order but the Chair is getting very little co-operation.

I do not want to make a big issue out of this. There is not much information contained in the tabular statement. Does it indicate that, as a percentage of our export earnings, our creditworthiness is much better than the Taoiseach and the chairman of the Allied Irish Banks suggested abroad? Does he agree that statements made abroad by the Taoiseach and members of the Government should not raise fears or apprehensions about our creditworthiness being in line with that of Poland, Mexico and Brazil?

I would not agree for a moment that the inference can be drawn from any statements made by the Taoiseach or any member of this Government——

He actually stated it. It is not an inference.

——which the Deputy is drawing. The question of creditworthiness or credit rating does not arise from the Deputy's question. The information asked for by him in the question is very specific and is not in any way a base on which to judge our creditworthiness. It is very clear that the kind of budgetary action we have taken has, if anything, improved our credit rating.

Ceist 16.

Interest payments on our foreign debt as a percentage of export earnings are one of the very important criteria in relation to credit rating. That is the reason I put down the question. I am trying to enhance Ireland's credit rating rather than do what the Minister's Government have been doing.

I share the Deputy's concern about Ireland's creditworthiness and credit rating. This has resulted directly from the budgetary strategy we have followed this year. The information the Deputy has requested is one of a number of factors which would be taken into account by foreign lenders when making a decision as to our creditworthiness.

16.

asked the Minister for Finance the currencies and amounts in which external Government debt is repayable as of 31 March 1983 or the most recent date for which figures are available; and the amount by which the recent devaluation has increased the debt in each of these currencies as of 31 March 1983.

The reply is in the form of a tabular statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report.

Following is the statement:

Exchequer Debt Outstanding at 31 March 1983.

Ceist 17.

If the Minister——

I am making a ruling now and, until I am over-ruled, I will stand by it. Supplementary questions are not in order on replies in the form of tabular statements. Questions are answered so that everyone in the House can take an intelligent interest in what is going on. There is no way that can happen if supplementary questions are put to replies in the form of tabular statements.

This will have to be a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Minister can give the most simple information in a tabular statement and thereby ensure that no supplementary question can be asked to elicit further information and to make further points. This will stifle any discussion or useful supplementary questions.

That would be an abuse of Question Time. If the Committee on Procedure and Privileges advise me to the contrary on my ruling I will gladly accept that advice.

If you know you are wrong, why do you have to insist on being wrong?

Deputy Collins will please withdraw that remark.

Which remark?

A suggestion that the Chair knows he is wrong and is persisting in giving wrong rulings.

I withdraw that, but you said that if you make a decision, as you have made it, you will stifle debate in the House.

I did not say that. Deputy Collins has just come into the House. We have been having this for the past quarter of an hour.

That is not true.

Simple supplementaries blossom forth into long discussions. I believe Ministers should answer questions orally or in written form.

There are questions down for tomorrow which will involve three figures. If the Minister insists on replying in a tabular form and I cannot ask supplementaries that is a nonsense.

We will wait and see what happens.

The inference in Deputy O'Kennedy's last remark is totally wide of the mark. The tabular statement in reply to this question——

I will not have Ministers saying they are answering questions with a tabular statement and then later on reading out the tabular statement. This leads to chaos. It is now 3.30 p.m. and the remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

Could I ask for written replies to some questions?

Deputy Mitchell will obtain his replies by applying to the General Office.

I put down a Private Notice Question in regard to Paul and Vincent in Tullamore.

I am calling on a number of Private Notice Questions. Deputy Woods and Deputy Tunney have been given permission to put Private Notice Questions to the Minister for Justice.