Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff employed in the Government Information Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8424/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Staff.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the staffing levels in the Government Information Service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9620/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 D’fhiafraigh Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin den Taoiseach cén méid duine atá fostaithe ag Seirbhís Eolais an Rialtais. [9854/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The number of staff employed in the Government Information Service, the Government Press Office and the communications unit is 15, ten of whom are civil servants. They are as follows: the Government press secretary, two deputy Government press secretaries, three Government press officers, a departmental information officer and eight clerical staff.
The Government Press Office and the Government Information Service provide an information service on Government policy to the public through the national and international media on behalf of myself, my Department and the Government. It also promotes a co-ordinated approach to media matters across all Departments.
The Government Press Office issues press releases and speeches to the media, briefs political correspondents, organises photocalls, information campaigns and ministerial representation on current affairs programmes. It disseminates information to the domestic and international media on the web and via e-mail. The Government Press Office and the Government Information Service, in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs, organises and manages the media aspects of State visits and major State occasions. Staff in the Government Press Office and departmental press officers are available after hours and at weekends to answer media queries.
While I did not catch it all, last November the Taoiseach stated he was to explore the appointment of a single provider of information across all Departments as a cost-cutting measure and as a cost-saving device. In recent weeks, every Minister has been talking about this proposal. Has the Taoiseach decided on a single information provider across all Departments that will go towards reducing the costs of the service being provided? What cost will be saved and when will it be implemented?
There has been a walkout of Ministers.
No decision has been made in respect of any reviews that are taking place at present. I recall a previous parliamentary question in which information to some effect was given to the Deputy. I must check it as I do not have to hand that supplementary information.
I hope this is one small measure that can be included in next Tuesday's budget and that a decision can be made by whoever is in a position to do this.
In respect of the Government Information Service and leaving aside the issue regarding the matter raised publically last week that received much attention, it appears as though the Government press secretary did contact the national television broadcaster regarding an apology to the Taoiseach in respect of a matter that took place in the National Gallery. Was this the case? Did the Government press officer contact the national broadcaster, RTE?
In all honesty Deputy Kenny——
What does the Ceann Comhairle mean?
——this question is about the number of staff employed and staffing levels in the Government Information Service.
I refer to one of the staff.
We will not go into that. The Deputy will ask what they had for their breakfast next.
Hang on.
Deputy Kenny should ask a question that is relevant.
I have no intention of asking what they had for their breakfast.
It was about the work they do.
I ask Deputy Kenny to please ask a question that is relevant.
I have no intention of asking about their breakfast or any other meal.
The Deputy should ask a question that is relevant. We must stay within the ambit of the question.
I am asking the Taoiseach in respect of——
The Ceann Comhairle should give the Deputy a chance.
The Taoiseach read out what the Government Information Service does——
Look——
—— such as arranging for photocalls and so on in respect of Government coverage, which is right and proper. I am asking a legitimate question about an officer who is appointed as part of the Government Information Service and I wish to know whether the Government press secretary contacted the national broadcaster to state that what it had done to the Taoiseach was wrong and that it should apologise.
It is up to the Taoiseach himself but this is not in order.
All the Deputy seeks are the bare facts.
Then I strongly suggest that he tables the bare question.
The Taoiseach is waiting to reply.
Well done Deputy McCormack. That was one of his better efforts.
As for the press secretary, he was not acting on my instruction or that of any Minister and nor did he seek an apology, as RTE itself decided to do that.
Did he make contact?
While I will come back to Deputy Kenny, he has had his supplementary questions. Deputy Burton is next.
The Taoiseach is confirming that the Government press secretary——
I will return to Deputy Kenny. Deputy Burton is next.
The Taoiseach is confirming that he did contact the national broadcaster.
Deputy Burton is next. I will come back to Deputy Kenny.
Can the Taoiseach confirm that he did make contact with the national broadcaster?
We are halfway there, a Cheann Comhairle.
That is well known. Just as with Deputy Kenny's own press officers, there is a fair bit of contact between them.
Deputy Burton is next——
That is all justified.
——and the Deputies can have a chat about it afterwards.
When Deputy Kenny's man does it, it is justified but when my man does it, it is not justified.
Deputies should not mind that stuff.
Is there still a Government information service? Traditionally, there was a Government press secretariat made up of political appointees, the five people to whom the Taoiseach referred, dealing with political issues while a separate Government information service, staffed by civil servants, dealt with the dissemination of routine, non-political information. The Government press secretary of the day was head of the Government information service but there was a clear distinction between the roles of political appointees and the civil servants working in the Government information service. The website of the Department of the Taoiseach no longer makes reference to the Government information service. There is only reference to a Government press office. When did the change happen? Did the Taoiseach make a public announcement of the change? Was a decision taken to abolish the separate Government information service and absorb it into the Government press office? Does the Taoiseach accept there is a great importance in keeping clear and distinct functions between the Government information service, civil servants, and the political appointees who deal with the press on a daily basis? Given the way the two sections have morphed together, does the Taoiseach expect civil servants to deal with political inquiries from the media, which are more pertinent to a political appointee?
The Government information service continues. A central Government information service is essential for information issuing from the Government. When the Government wishes to release information this can only be done by a central information service such as the Government information service. The Government information service has grown from early days when there were only three major national broadsheets and one national broadcaster. Today there is 24-hour coverage and instantaneous access to information from newswires and websites. Today's information from Government can be released via paper press releases, e-mails, text messages, podcasts and webcasts, to name a few of the new technologies used.
The staff of the Government information service are subject to the usual conventions that apply to civil servants in respect of political impartiality in their work at all times. Their duties and those of the Government press secretary are to liaise with the media on behalf of the Government. The Government press office provides a comprehensive information service on Government policy to the public through the national and international media on behalf of the Government. Political correspondents are briefed on a daily basis. Through regular contact with departmental press officers they ensure a co-ordinated approach to media matters.
In what capacity did the Government press secretary contact the national broadcaster? Was it in his capacity as head of the Government information service——
Deputy Burton is back to the same old thing. That is not relevant to these questions.
——or as the Government press secretary?
I cannot understand the fixation with that matter.
Is it normal procedure that when the Government has an issue with RTE coverage, it goes straight to the director-general of RTE?
The question deals with staffing levels and the number of staff, an méid daoine atá fostaithe ag Seirbhís Eolais an Rialtais.
Does the Government press secretary go straight to the director-general of RTE? Is it appropriate that the Government press secretary contact the director-general in this way?
That is not within the ambit of these questions.
I sympathise, as I did before, particularly with the family of the Taoiseach, in that the particular matter was offensive but this is a general principle.
I told Deputy Kenny already that this is not within the ambit of the question.
When the Government press secretary sees coverage on RTE, of which he may disapprove, does he pick up the phone, as was done last week, to the director-general of RTE?
The question deals with staffing levels.
Is this appropriate? How many times has the Government press secretary made contact with the director-general of RTE?
That is a completely different issue.
In this case——
I ask Deputy Burton to comply with the Chair's ruling.
——was the press secretary acting alone?
I ask you to comply with the Chair's ruling. I told you that question was not relevant.
Was he acting alone?
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin. The question is not relevant.
Maidir le seirbhís eolais an Rialtais, an bhfuil straitéis ann chun ráitis agus doiciméid a chur ar fáil i nGaeilge? Má tá, cé mhéid daoine atá fostaithe chun é sin a chur i bhfeidhm?
Is í an Ghaeilge teanga dhúchais an príomhoifigeach san oifig sin. Tá sé ar fáil chun eolas a thabhairt trí Ghaeilge do gach éinne sna meáin chumarsáide mar gheall ar an méid atá ag tarlú sa Rialtas.
An bhfuil an Taoiseach ábalta freagra a thabhairt dom maidir leis an straitéis atá ag seirbhís eolais an Rialtais? An bhfuil straitéis ann? An bhfuil daoine ag obair go speisialta chun ráitis agus doiciméid a chur an fáil i nGaeilge? Is é sin mo cheist. Iarraim ar an Taoiseach freagra specific a thabhairt ar an straitéis sin.
Ní chóir go mbeadh straitéis ann. Nuair a chuireann daoine glaoch ar an oifig, tá oifigigh ann chun an eolas atá á lorg a chur ar fáil trí mheán na Gaeilge. Tá sé ar fáil i nGaeilge.
Social Partnership.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he has responded to the request of the general secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for a resumption of social partnership talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8619/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he next plans to meet the social partners; when the steering group referred to in section 7 of Towards 2016, Review and Transitional Agreement, 2008 to 2009, is expected to hold its next meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9621/09]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he plans to invite the social partners to resume negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10598/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he has received a response to the invitation he issued to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 24 March 2009 to engage in talks; the issues he plans to have on the agenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13024/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress of the recently restarted talks with the social partners. [13025/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the agenda and schedule of meetings for his renewed engagement with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13187/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, together.
In January, the Government and social partners agreed on a framework for a pact for stabilisation, social solidarity and economic renewal. That framework acknowledged that urgent and radical action was required to restore stability to the public finances; maximise short-term economic activity and employment; and improve competitiveness. Intensive discussions followed between the Government and social partners to attempt to agree, within that framework, the key elements of the fiscal adjustment required.
In the context of the discussions, the Government tabled proposals to achieve a saving of €1.4 billion through the introduction of a pension levy in the public service. The unions were not in a position to agree to that proposal. The Government's consequent decisions on achieving the €2 billion adjustment were taken within these parameters and in accordance with principles agreed with the social partners.
The challenge now faced by the country is immense and this is already evident from the very significant reduction in economic activity and the associated sharp rise in unemployment. It is in turn reflected in the very serious fiscal position. The Government is preparing to announce further measures on 7 April to address the deteriorating situation.
In that context, and having regard to the potential for further severe impacts on jobs and living standards, I am convinced that there is a case for the development of what the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, called an integrated national response to the complex interplay of domestic and global forces which must be confronted, and for this response to be effective by commanding wider societal ownership.
For that reason, last week I invited the social partners to engage as a matter of urgency with the Government in seeking to develop and conclude a national agreement building on the shared perspectives which emerged in our discussion in January and in the recent NESC report. I welcome the decisions taken by the social partners last week to accept that invitation and, in particular, the ICTU decision to call off the planned industrial action.
It has been broadly noted that the Taoiseach has indicated a broad welcome for the ten-point plan put forward by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. His statement was in the context of workers right across the board having voted for industrial action yesterday. That action was deferred because of the commencement of new talks, which are most welcome.
Will the Taoiseach be specific with regard to the elements within the ten-point plan where he sees the potential for real progress in the course of this engagement? It is broadly seen that the Taoiseach is making a pitch, most particularly to the trade union movement, and making the case that real progress can be made in negotiations. If that is the case, will the Taoiseach be specific in addressing the ten points put forward by ICTU and give us an idea of his thoughts? We can, for example, deal with four of them.
Will the Taoiseach ditch the so-called public service pension levy, which the ICTU has correctly described as crude and unfair? With regard to those who have been made unemployed as a result of the contraction in the labour market, is the Taoiseach prepared to guarantee incomes of 80% of salary in order to allow workers to participate in extensive training and upskilling? Will he introduce a three-year moratorium on house repossessions and replace all the bank executives who played a direct role in the collapse of the banking system in this jurisdiction?
What does the Taoiseach propose to do in the context of restoring the crucial pay elements that were negotiated as part of the social partnership agreement? He must have noted that significant numbers of private sector companies have already paid the first tranche of increases that were committed to as part of that agreement. However, the Government, the Construction Industry Federation and IBEC are rowing back in this regard and are refusing to pay the increases that are due. The ICTU has described what is taking place as a campaign against wages.
Will the Taoiseach indicate where he stands in respect of these four aspects of the ten-point plan, particularly if he remains of the view that they offer the merit he indicated when commenting on the plan on its initial publication? If not in respect of these matters, in which areas can progress be made?
In welcoming contributions to a process of discussion, one does not, by that token, provide prior agreement. There are a number of principles contained in the framework that are central to trying to devise a way forward. One of these principles is that which relates to stabilising the public finances. An issue that has arisen is the ongoing question of how to deal with this matter. In the absence of stabilising the public finances and working towards a process of dealing with the structural deficit that has arisen, the prospect of economic recovery will be deferred. We must, therefore, consider these issues in the context of priorities of this nature.
There is an acknowledgement in the framework up to which the parties signed on 28 January last that the Government and the social partners agree on the necessity to deal with the deficit through an appropriate combination of expenditure and taxation adjustments. In the interim, the NESC report has deepened the shared analysis within society regarding the nature of the problems with which we are confronted and the approaches we must consider if we are to provide a degree of stabilisation for the economy in the short term and, subsequently, to plan for recovery.
The Government and the unions disagreed in respect of the pensions levy. The latter was a necessary part of an adjustment introduced by the Government earlier in the year. That adjustment, which was necessary, was designed to bring in €2 billion in an effort to ensure that international markets and people at home would recognise the Government's determination to make decisions that would address what was then a deteriorating position vis-à-vis the public finances.
The terms and conditions of public service workers and the question of job security are important considerations. The value of public service pensions as against depleted pensions in the private sector, which have been adversely affected by the financial crisis, must be seen in the context of fairness. From my point of view, the proposal in this regard was in keeping with the requirements of the situation and the principles we outlined in the framework document.
The Minister for Finance has continually outlined to the House Government policy on the banking sector. He has not attained unanimous or consistent support for those measures but his measures regarding the State guarantee and recapitalisation were the right decisions. He is now examining the position regarding risk management and how we deal with issues arising in our own system, which are not unique to us, but the question of impaired access etc. is an issue that must be examined carefully.
On the question of pay, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation has re-engaged with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in regard to examining the current pay agreement agreed last year. Those discussions are bilateral between IBEC and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and to what extent any progress will be made in that area is a matter for the parties directly concerned. For our part as a public sector employer, we have indicated our position on pay for this year and next year.
On the question of home repossession, we insist that the code of conduct drawn up by the Irish Banking Federation now be put on a statutory basis and include all providers of mortgage finance and not simply those who are members of that federation to ensure that the code of conduct, by being put on a statutory basis, will greatly assist in ensuring that precipitative action is not taken against those who fall into arrears in the immediate term.
Déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall teacht ar ais do Theachta Ó Caoláin. I call Deputy Burton.
Ní raibh seans agam ceist a chur.
B'fhéidir go mbeidh.
An mbeidh?
Tá súil agam go mbeidh.
The Labour Party has already welcomed the Taoiseach's rather belated decision to write to the unions inviting them to re-enter talks with Government. However, would the Taoiseach acknowledge that it is not acceptable for Government to arbitrarily breach an agreement that it had freely entered into only a few months earlier? In particular, does the Taoiseach understand the anger of many ordinary public servants — teachers, nurses and gardaí — in respect of the arbitrary way the pension levy was imposed at the 11th hour in the talks compared to what they see as the treatment of the chief executive of Irish Nationwide, Mr. Fingleton in terms of his extraordinary bonus, his even more extraordinary pension and the fact that one quarter of that pension, which could be as much as €5 million, will be paid to him entirely tax free? Also, we had the case of Mr. McCaughey and two other people who made very large capital profits on the sale of their business. They sent their wives, perfectly legitimately, offshore to Italy. Who would not like to go to San Remo in Italy for 183 days and immerse oneself in Italian culture? We would all like to spend 183 days in San Remo at the end of which, instead of having to pay the cost of a sojourn abroad in Italy, we would make a handy €5 million profit. Does the Taoiseach understand that ordinary civil servants who give fantastic service to this country are understandably angry that there is, as it were, one treatment for them, which is the imposition of a severe levy, and another for others? The details of the levy are unfair in that in some cases people on lower income are paying more levy than people at the top echelons, particularly the top administrators in the public service. Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that that is an enormous difficulty? Does he propose to address that when he goes back into talks?
Also, does the Taoiseach have a timeframe for when the talks will recommence? Is there a deadline? Is he having discussions about discussions? The unions have laid out their stall, indicating that they want a three-year moratorium on home repossessions and the use of mediation instead of the courts. They have also indicated that pension funds which might be suffering solvency problems should be examined in the context of the National Pensions Reserve Fund. The unions have pointed out that the National Pensions Reserve Fund is being allocated to rescuing the banks but the Government has no plan to address pension funds such as that in Waterford Crystal or in other companies which have gone into liquidation and which may have solvency difficulties.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the Government must give a strong commitment on fairness, where people in the public service, particularly teachers and nurses and the like, get a fair deal? We all know these are difficult times, but measures must be applied fairly. The Fingleton and McCaughey examples are like a bone in the throat for many public servants when they compare such treatment to their own.
The talks will proceed and their length will depend on the progress that can be made on the issues that arise. On the levy, there is a subjective perspective — people see it in a certain way. The wider context in which the pension levy had to be considered was the need for a €2 billion adjustment to be made as a credible response to the fiscal situation at that time. This was agreed with the social partners. I have not heard from anyone what area of services should have had money deducted if the levy was not to be imposed. If €2 billion was the figure to be obtained, the levy represented €1.4 billion and I have not heard from people on the opposite side where they feel it should have been borne if it was not to be borne there. Where in the services should it have been borne? Should it have been in the health area, for example?
The levy as introduced did not affect existing pensioners. It was a question of the public service employer looking at the financial situation and finding savings to meet the requirements of that situation. One would like to think it would not have been necessary to impose such a levy but it was necessary. I have not heard alternatives in terms of economies that were to be outlined that would make up for the difference, since €2 billion was the figure to be obtained.
The money that has been used to recapitalise the banks will get a coupon. There will be a return for that money, probably a higher return than is available from other avenues of investment at present. It is not a question of being used other than in a way to assist the economy. We need a functioning bank system if we are to have economic recovery and there is more work to be done in that respect. It is also important that the proposals formulated by Government are on the basis of a return being provided for the taxpayer and as an investment by Government in the same way as these pension funds have been invested elsewhere in the past. We have ensured that those funds are available for investment in Ireland in the banking system at a time when it is needed and when a return is being sought by Government on behalf the taxpayer in respect of them.
On the issues raised by the Deputy about individual cases, I introduced the change in the Finance Act 2006 to cover that situation. I also introduced changes in the pension system generally and I would point out there has been a return of the bonus that was paid to the chief executive of the Irish Nationwide Building Society by agreement.
In February the Taoiseach said he would listen attentively if there were proposals to tweak the pension levy that would bring the unions back on side. Has there been a tweaking of the levy? I welcome the unions' response to the Government's invitation to talks and their calling off of the day of national industrial action. However, the discussions must, to some extent, be meaningful. Will the Taoiseach tell the social partners he is in a position or intends to address the unfairness of the levy, which was a central issue to the unions, in the emergency budget?
The Dáil never gets any of the information discussed between the social partners and the Government, which is a shame. Last week, Fine Gael put together a detailed document, broadly welcomed by the Government Chief Whip, which outlined how we believe 100,000 jobs can be created in four years. It deals with the leveraging of money which would not pile more on the national debt and which could create hope and confidence for people. It also would be a help to the Government in the difficulties it faces in drafting a budget for next week. Will the Taoiseach respond to our invitation that he, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, discuss Fine Gael's proposals with myself and Deputy Bruton? Will he respond, in a positive and constructive fashion, if the Government wishes to adopt these proposals, which we consider well-costed, relevant and capable of creating 100,000 jobs?
While the Chief Whip welcomed Fine Gael's proposals, they will have to be examined in detail. I do not wish to throw cold water on the initiative the Deputy took on behalf of his party but we would not necessarily agree with the approach. We are in an advanced stage of the budgetary process and it needs to be finalised over the next several days. These matters put in the public realm by Deputy Kenny can be debated on the floor of the House in due course when we can give our considered views on them.
There is nothing under discussion in social partnership that is not already in the public domain. The framework has been published, people are aware of its contents, the principles that inform it and the discussions taking place. The Government, as a public sector employer with a difficult financial situation with which to contend, can only examine proposals or submissions made by any of the parties to these discussions in the context of their overall contribution to maintaining the public finances in good order. There is very little room to manoeuvre in many of these areas, unless an alternative proposal is made which keeps the Government in a position in which it can obtain savings of the order required. I do not see how the basic proposal of the levy can be withdrawn. It is not possible with the financial situation we face. We will examine all proposals in good faith.
Is that a "Yes" or a "No"?
I am trying to explain the situation. Deputy McCormack opposed the levy by not voting for it. Now he is wondering if I will take it back. In his next breath he is telling me not to borrow any more and to save more money. He cannot have it every way. If he wants to play games, he can play games; he is good at it. It is about the only contribution he makes anyway.
What I have to do in terms of the finances is to say to people that we had to take up €2 billion at that time. This levy formed part of that and it resulted in a saving of €1.4 billion. We have heard no alternative from anyone else as to where €1.4 billion of that €2 billion was to be obtained. People talk around and about it. They do not agree with it but they cannot tell us where else we are supposed to find it. That is in this House. On the constructive proposals coming from anyone else, I will examine them, but I cannot give any commitment whatever, other than to say this Government will have to find savings of at least equal and probably greater measure in order to consider anything from there.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin and then finally Deputy Barrett.
I just want to say for the record that——
No. I will have to try to come back to the Deputy.
——the Fine Gael Party proposed an alternative to the saving of €2 billion involving the freezing of pay——
Please. I will have to try to come back to Deputy Kenny.
——reducing bonuses, introducing windfall taxes and the use of generic drugs. An alternative was proposed.
I call an Teachta Ó Caoláin, then Deputy Barrett and that is it then.
On the resumption of talks, which we have all welcomed, what measures or indications has the Taoiseach either taken or given to merit confidence within the trade union movement that the Government is serious about addressing the ten-point economic recovery plan put forward by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions? We all recognise that the facilitating legislation is now an Act in terms of the public service pension levy. Has the Taoiseach even considered suspending the implementation of that element of that particular piece of legislation in order to show good faith entering into these negotiations given that congress has very clearly stated that this is a matter that must be addressed substantively in the course of any resumed talks?
What steps has the Taoiseach taken to address what is now a growing resource within our economy, that is, the some 100,000 additional people out of work, many of whom are qualified in the professions, who are highly trained in their respective trade or in employment over many years and are now in receipt of jobseeker's allowance? Surely those people are one of the greatest resources we have? What steps does the Government propose to take to reactivate that tremendous resource that currently is not making a direct contribution in terms of productivity and the overall take of the Exchequer? Can the Government seriously continue to ignore that huge well of skill——
We have very little time. I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to conclude.
——that needs to be put to work in this country, given the opportunity of the dignity of work and the opportunity and the chance to make a direct contribution? Those are the questions that people are asking the Taoiseach to answer.
I call Deputy Barrett. He should be brief and then I will ask the Taoiseach to reply.
When we were talking about tweaking the pension levy I presume the Taoiseach's criticism was not intended for this side of the House. He may not be aware that an amendment was tabled by the Fine Gael Party through Deputy Bruton, on which I spoke, seeking to tweak the pension levy in favour of the lower paid and that the loss of revenue would be made up by increasing the top rate by a small amount.
The criticism that has been levied about people putting forward proposals, taking away money that he is trying to raise, is unfair. It begs the question as to the role of an Opposition in a democracy — when people cannot accept good amendments, meant in good faith and tabled in response to a Government proposal, which it now appears the Government is prepared to discuss with bodies outside this House.
Hear, hear.
Let me make it clear; we made a decision to impose——
I wish to make it clear that we tabled——
I am sorry but I was just about to respond to two questions.
The time is up Deputy Barrett.
I wish to make it clear that we introduced a pension levy, with which the unions could not agree and so disengaged from the talks process. Re-engagement has only commenced. It was agreed at the time that we needed to raise €2 billion, €1.4 billion of which was from a pension levy.
We were aware of that fact.
I know that, but Deputy Ó Caoláin has suggested that I should defer its implementation. That seems to suggest to me that he has not yet grasped the seriousness of the position in regard to the public finances or the fact we are not in a position to defer its implementation. It is being implemented. If any proposal comes up for discussion, I will look at it and act in good faith with regard to any tweaking or whatever is suggested. I made that point when the measure was introduced. However, I want to make it clear that the €1.4 billion we required is a requirement that has not gone away. In fact, the requirement for further funds has emerged and that is the reason we have a supplementary budget to consider for next week. If people suggest the possibility of tweaking, they must also understand that, from the Government's point of view, the overall financial position of the country and Government, in terms of the wider public sector pay bill, must also be addressed. We must not end up with a worse situation, without the imposition of the levy.
Deputy Barrett can table amendments if he wishes. We were in a position where we had to proceed with obtaining the €1.4 billion as we outlined. I am not aware that Fine Gael Members have been going around the country, saying they support the pension levy. If that is now their position and they just have a problem with some detail of it, that is fine, but that is not what I hear in my area.
What steps is the Taoiseach taking to create work?