Vol. 704 No. 4
1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on implementation of the recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on the reform of the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48418/09]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in 2010 regarding to implementation of the OECD report on reform of the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3184/10]
3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the OECD report on public service reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11524/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos.1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The review of the Irish public service, "Towards an Integrated Public Service", published in 2008, benchmarked the public service in Ireland against other comparable countries and made recommendations as to the further direction of public service reform. It confirmed the many strengths of the system and identified challenges that needed to be addressed. Transforming public services represents the blueprint for a new type of unified public service focused on common goals, with greater co-operation and reduced boundaries between sectors, organisations and professions, with a much greater integration of services around user needs and far greater efficiency in internal data sharing and administration through shared service models.
Progress has been made in a number of areas to date, including progress in a range of instruments in the human resource area which continue to contribute to the implementation of expenditure savings for this year, notably the incentivised scheme of early retirement in the public service, the special Civil Service career break scheme and the shorter working year scheme, together with the moratorium on the filling of public sector vacancies by recruitment or promotion. A new e-Government strategy for 2010 has been approved by the Cabinet committee on transforming public services. The strategy highlights new approaches to overcome some of the difficulties there are with putting certain services on-line and should thereby help to achieve an improvement in the use of electronic means for delivering public services.
The national public procurement operations unit, established in 2009, continues to leverage the public service's buying power by organising procurement of common goods and services across the public service. During 2009, in addition to achieving better value on procurement spend, savings of €27 million were achieved by public bodies with the support of the unit. It is intended that significant additional savings will be targeted in 2010. Work is ongoing on specific proposals in the area of shared services on the basis that there are significant potential savings associated with such initiatives. Work is currently being advanced on shared services in a number of sectors, including human resources, pensions administration, payroll and financial management.
The organisational review programme has been extended in order that all Government Departments and major offices will be reviewed within the next three years. The team, which is based in my Department, carries out and publishes assessments of the capacity of individual Departments and major offices to meet their challenges over the coming years. Four organisations were reviewed last year — the Department of Health and Children, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Central Statistics Office and the Property Registration Authority. These reviews are due to be published shortly and will be accompanied by follow-up action plans on the key findings prepared by each of the four organisations. An additional three organisations will be reviewed this year, namely, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. My Department will also be reviewed this year, with this review being led by a senior official from the Department of Finance.
Work is progressing in regard to the development of new performance and governance frameworks for State agencies and the greater use of service level agreements in this context. Work is also under way on the establishment of the senior public service to centrally manage and deploy top public servants. Initially, the service will be introduced in the Civil Service, before being extended across the wider public service.
The Taoiseach made reference to the establishment of a Department to deal with public sector reform. Regardless of whatever adjustment he makes in the next few weeks, will he address this question by giving responsibility to a Minister or Minister of State to deal with public service reform? As the Taoiseach is aware, such a position was allocated many years ago to a Minister of State who had specific responsibility for it. I would like the Taoiseach to refer to his comments in that regard. He indicated he might close down two Ministries and make a readjustment, with a focus on public sector reform.
Has the plan for e-Government to which the Taoiseach referred been published? Can we get copies of it? There are serious possibilities for efficiencies and streamlining the manner in which business is done.
I and a number of my colleagues raised the matter of public procurement at a meeting with the OECD some weeks ago. The amount of public procurement tenders which go outside the country is in the order of 17%, compared to the European average which is only 1.7%. This means that many small businesses cannot tender for business in Ireland. It is too complex and costly. As I said before, we are exporting business. There are serious possibilities in terms of value for money and saving money by implementing a proper system of public procurement. There are European guidelines and regulations in place but it is an area on which the Taoiseach could usefully focus in order to get a much better response, in terms of efficiency, value and the provision of jobs for many smaller firms in Ireland.
I have not entered into any public or private speculation in regard to any upcoming arrangements regarding how Government is organised and I do not intend to do so here. On the question of e-Government, according to the latest European Union Commission e-Government benchmarks, Ireland's ranking for on-line sophistication has improved from 17th position in 2007 to joint 7th position, with an equivalent rating to the United Kingdom and Finland. The same benchmarks place Ireland in the top two countries for e-procurement services. Examples of on-line services which have been progressed include on-line applications for birth, marriage and death certificates; automatic reminders when driving licences and passports expire; payment of the majority of courts fines electronically; and on-line declarations to the Garda Síochána for minor crimes. The customer does not need to know the relevant Garda station as back-end processes ensure they are routed correctly.
In addition, Ireland is one of the only countries in Europe which has put in place a high-speed national Government network to which all public bodies can connect using any telecommunications operator in the Irish marketplace. The Department of Finance is currently working with Departments, offices and agencies to develop a rolling programme of e-Government projects. In this regard, Departments are developing detailed e-Government plans.
On the question of public procurement, we had a long discussion on this matter during Leaders' Questions last week. I do not think I can add anything further to the discussion. I emphasised the need for as much flexibility as possible to accommodate the SME sector in Ireland to be able to participate in Government procurement.
In respect of specific public service changes, the Taoiseach said he would engage with public service unions to bring about change as speedily as possible, a comment which was made before the collapse in the social partnership talks last year. The country is now faced with an increasingly uncertain situation whereby public sector workers, including teachers and health care workers, are taking industrial action. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said at the weekend that there was a suggestion that Deputies and councillors who support the Government would in some way be blacklisted by local authority staff. As this is a matter of considerable public importance, in the context of changes in the delivery of public services is the Government engaging with the trade unions? Arising from the comments of the Minister for Finance, everybody would like to see a situation whereby services can be provided for people, as would be expected.
The Government's task force on the public service recommended that there should be a move to a common public service contract to facilitate personnel moving from one Department to another. Is there any indication whether that will receive Government support? Will it require legislation? Are the heads of any such Bill being prepared? The task force said there should be a common public service contract in order to facilitate movement from Department to Department and so on. What is the status and position regarding the task force's recommendation?
As employer, the Government is of course available to engage with its employees and their representatives in regard to any industrial relations matters that arise, and matters certainly arise at present. Obviously, however, we have to find a realistic basis upon which that engagement can take place. Using existing and well-established channels of communication regarding the handling of the current dispute provides us with a means of seeking to explore whether that is in fact possible. The Government has always been very clear that it is interested in having a meaningful dialogue but there is no point for either side in just having a dialogue. We need to find a realistic basis upon which that engagement can take place, and we are anxious that this becomes possible as soon as is practicable. The Government has always been and will continue to be of that view.
At the same time, the escalation of disputes can force management to become involved in proportionate responses. As opposed to the current situation, we would rather have people conduct a discussion around a common vision for a reformed public service that will meet the needs of public servants and can best provide for their concerns, both individually and collectively, by trying to find a constructive and positive agenda upon which we can progress matters.
On the question of public service contracts, this comes back to being able to deal with these matters against a stable industrial relations background that can best be negotiated and provided for in that context. The whole question of redeployment and flexibility in regard to where and in what circumstances people can work and provide their skills within the public sector is an issue that would form part of any drive for a modernisation of the public service, on which we would be anxious to engage.
In the course of a newspaper interview last November, the Taoiseach said there was an urgent need for reform in the public service but that he felt the implementation of it would be in the medium to longer term. At what point in his 13 years as a Minister and Taoiseach since 1997 did he come to the conclusion there was an urgent need for public service reform?
Second, as I was unclear from the reply the Taoiseach gave to Deputy Kenny, is it or is it not the Taoiseach's intention when he reconfigures the Government to appoint a Minister with responsibility for public service reform? It would appear the appointment of such a ministry at Cabinet level is required in order to drive the reform of public service. We have had many reports on it and much talk about it but it needs to happen.
Third, the Taoiseach referred to the fact organisational reviews had been carried out in a number of Departments and he referred to the Department of Health and Children. There was a report in the newspapers on 18 February last which purported to come from somebody who saw a copy of the report that has been carried out. It states that some staff at the Department of Health and Children have little or nothing to do while colleagues are overwhelmed with work but management appears reluctant to deal with the problems. Is this the case?
Finally, the industrial action that is taking place has arisen from the fact that the Taoiseach commenced discussions with the public service trade unions about a reform package. He then collapsed those discussions, unilaterally cut the pay of the public servants and unilaterally introduced a number of other changes, including changes to pension arrangements. This has now given rise to the industrial action we have seen taking place since January and which is escalating. When people try to access various Departments, depending on the day they ring or try to make contact, if it is an industrial action day or afternoon, nobody answers the telephones or there is one kind of problem or another.
What I understood the Taoiseach to say to Deputy Kenny is that he does not think the time is yet right for discussions with the trade unions to try to resolve those issues. How much worse does the industrial action have to get before he will call in the trade unions, have discussions with them, try to resolve the issues and get normal work resumed throughout the various organs of the public service?
The record will show I did not suggest the time was not right for discussions at present. I am simply saying there is a need to find a realistic basis upon which an engagement can take place. The Government has been and is available at all times as an employer to discuss matters of interest to its employees' representatives and trade unions. Obviously, however, we need a realistic basis for that engagement.
As I said, the management of the dispute at present involves using well-established channels regarding the management interface with union representatives in an effort to ensure core business is not unduly affected and to avoid further escalation. The fact is the Government stands ready to engage on a realistic basis.
There are many public servants throughout the country who would recognise that there are decisions Government had to take in December which were unavoidable and necessary, and which were the discharge of our duty as a Government in order to bring forward a budget that had credibility and will enable us to proceed. I recognise, of course, that this did not lead to a negotiated settlement with the unions, despite the best efforts of everyone concerned. However, there is also the fact that, three months on, there is an agenda we need to address, including modernisation of the public services. This needs to be conducted on the basis of mutual interest because it is through dealing with those issues and providing greater efficiencies and effectiveness in the service in this way that one does not have to look to other ways of trying to trim the public service pay and pensions bill.
To look to the non-pay side of the house is obviously something we would like to do. We have no wish to go back in regard to the question of pay. That has never been our intention and if it can be avoided at any cost at all, we will of course consider other options, as we should be and are willing to do.
In regard to the Deputy's first question regarding at what stage of my career did I think the public service needed reform, this is an ongoing process. There have been reforms of the public service and many initiatives have been taken by successive Governments. None, perhaps, has reached the ambition it set itself, for a whole range of reasons, but it is an ongoing process and to suggest there has been no change in the public service and that we should only now get involved in such change is to do an injustice to the many social partnership agreements that have been signed in which, as the Deputy knows, many modernisation proposals were required as part of the pay arrangements agreed in those agreements, many of which were fulfilled.
What has come forward in the OECD report is a wider change agenda that seeks to lower, if one likes, the institutional boundaries between State agencies, bodies and Departments in a whole range of areas. This requires discussion, negotiation and agreement, and, unfortunately, it has not been possible, for a whole range of reasons, to be able to get onto that agenda as quickly as I am sure everyone would like. However, the Deputy will know much discussion has taken place around those issues which could be reactivated in the right circumstances, and we have to ascertain whether there is a way in which we can proceed along those lines. I will be anxious to do so given the right circumstances.
Regarding the question of the organisational review programmes, the Deputy referred specifically to the Department of Health and Children. The reviews are due to be published shortly. They will be brought to Government and considered and discussed there and it will be a case of what emerges from it. As is the case in respect of any reform programme, as we have seen with regard to the McCarthy report and other such reviews, the first action is to identify the priority actions in any Department and then to see what level of resources is required. It is critical for the effective delivery of services to the public to have that flexibility to redeploy staff elsewhere to pressure points in the system, whether in the Department of Social and Family Affairs or in other Departments, where the services are required. It is a case of trying to find a way in which this can happen more readily than under existing agreements and arrangements and this would certainly improve the situation considerably.
I do not wish to speculate about the structure of how Government will organise itself but public service reform is not just the business of one Ministry; it is the business of Government and a whole-Government approach is required. It is a case of finding a framework in which change and reform can be considered and this would be the best means for achieving a successful outcome to this agenda.
I am not sure what the difference is between what the Taoiseach has said to me, the phraseology he used with regard to the industrial action and what I put to him, which was whether he did not think the time was right. Industrial action is taking place and it is escalating. It is causing very significant disruption to the delivery of public service, such as in the passport office, in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, in local authorities and right across the board. I do not hear anything from the Taoiseach or anything from anybody on the Government side as to what is being done to try to resolve it. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that a normal service is delivered to the public and if industrial action is taking place, as there is, the Government has a responsibility to do whatever can be done to resolve that. I do not see anything being done. All I see and all that I have seen since the turn of the year is that the industrial action situation is simply getting worse and becoming more widespread and disruptive. I see no response from the Government and I get no indication from the Taoiseach today that he intends to do anything about it. It is time we started hearing from Government as to what is going to be done about it or will the Government allow this action to drag on and become worse? That is my first issue and I ask the Taoiseach to be specific in his reply.
In respect of the wider issue of public sector reform, it is one of those issues that keeps being talked about and about which reports are produced but there is very little action. One of the tragedies is that in the talks between Government and the unions prior to Christmas, there were, as I read it — I read the seven or eight documents most of which had been signed-off or virtually signed-off — reform packages relating to a number of Departments. They seemed to me to be delivering the most extensive levels of reform seen in the public service for some time. Yet the Taoiseach collapsed the talks. What is his understanding now of the status of those documents? Are they still live or are they dead since the discussions were collapsed? Does the Taoiseach see any prospect of resuming discussions on those documents? What is the position?
At one stage, there was a Department of the Public Service and very considerable reforms of the public service were achieved in the lifetime of that Department. It was wound up and subsumed into the Department of Finance. We now have a Department of Finance which is responsible for the normal budgetary processes, Estimates and now, banking, in addition to responsibility for the public service. It is widely speculated that the Taoiseach is considering some extensive re-jigging of Departments. Would he agree there should be a separate Department of the Public Service which would lead a process of reform in the public service and this would be one way of driving forward such reform?
I regard it as a rather simplistic notion to suggest that the structure of the Department of the Public Service is the determining factor as to what level of public service reform can be achieved. In successive social partnership agreements over the past seven agreements since the era to which the Deputy refers, there has been far more public service reform available under social partnership than there had been by the diktat of any particular Department of the Public Service.
Why did the Taoiseach bring social partnership to an end?
I did not end social partnership. We may not have a public service pay agreement but we still have the framework of Towards 2016, a ten-year arrangement which is still in place and which still informs policy.
It is like one of the unfinished housing estates.
It might remind the Deputy of some of his old Stalinist — from his old days——
He is still reading that book, by the way.
As the authors of social partnership, we happen to have a belief in it. It is unfortunate we were unable to successfully come to an agreement before Christmas; that is a matter of regret. However, at the end of the day, the Government had a responsibility to discharge and we had to proceed.
Both the Deputy and I have acknowledged the extensive work of those talks. They set out a blueprint for a lot of reforms and changes that are agreed between the parties as being certainly possible, feasible and achievable. We have to find the right circumstances in which those talks can proceed and I am anxious to see if this is possible. We all know that with regard to any industrial relations dispute, it is necessary to find a realistic basis upon which we can engage. It should not be assumed by the Deputy that the Government is indifferent to this issue as the truth is quite the contrary. The Government is anxious to see an outcome because we do not believe that the industrial action will achieve the objectives it has set itself. The Government has had to work within a budgetary framework which has been clearly outlined. We have to find a way in which we can engage proactively with employees in the public and Civil Service to proceed with a modernisation programme which I believe is necessary and will be helpful in addressing the concerns currently being discussed by public servants and their representatives about ways of achieving reform that is responsive to the needs of the people and provides an arrangement for good working conditions for those working in the service. This has always been the broad agenda. The context and circumstances may change from time to time but the basic objective of Government is to have a common agenda set out against a settled industrial relations background, in which we can all work together for our mutual interest and satisfaction.
Cuts in staffing, embargoes on recruitment, pay cuts, cuts in services across the board, none of these equates with public service reform yet if one were to ask the wider public to say what is the Government position on public services, those are the replies one would receive. It appears that the Government has no strategy on so-called public service reform and that its actions are all directed in the areas I have described. Has the Government a strategy? What are its objectives? What is the strategy and what is the timeframe for it? Is it an agreed strategy between the component parts of the current coalition? Will the Taoiseach accept that against the backdrop of pay cuts and embargoes on recruitment and cuts in services, there is little prospect of any serious engagement with the representatives of the public service workers? Does the Taoiseach agree that he effectively scuppered a golden opportunity when he collapsed the talks with the public sector unions in advance of Christmas, when they, including the representatives of the health workers, were at the negotiating table with definite, imaginative and innovative ideas that would have resulted in reform of the public services? Where stands all of this now? Does the Taoiseach not recognise that the consequence of his effective collapsing of the talks before Christmas leaves us with a situation where there is an ever-deepening work to rule with further industrial action in the offing? Whatever potential there was for serious engagement appears, for now at least, to have been thrown out by the Taoiseach's action at the time.
Who are the public service workers? They are members of all of our families, they are not a bloc of people apart from society at large. Would the Taoiseach not agree that it is invidious of elected voices and media commentators to try to create a rift between public service workers and private sector employees? They come from the same families. We are talking about public service workers — nurses, teachers, fire-fighters and gardaí — the people who provide local government services such as water services and street maintenance. They are real people and they are hurting.
Is the Taoiseach aware that more than two thirds of public sector workers earn an income of less than €50,000 per year, with more than 40% earning less than €40,000 per year? They have taken a pay cut on top of pay cut and have demonstrated a willingness in the past to embrace reform but that is not being acknowledged. They are being continuously demonised and it is time the Government faced up to the reality of the current difficulties representing themselves in the daily work of every Member in this House.
What is the Government's strategy? What is it going to do about the current difficulties with public service workers and their legitimate calls for redress of the very serious cuts that have been imposed on them over recent budgets?
The luxury of being in Opposition means Deputies do not have to worry about budgets or what money is coming into the coffers.
We are certainly worried.
The Government is not worried about it.
Sure Gerry cannot count.
It is a great luxury not to have to worry about budgets while being able to set out rhetorically that the Deputy would defend public services by providing for more public servants, more money and more services while, in the meantime, the taxpayer has to borrow €400 million per week to keep present levels of service going. We do not have the same room to manoeuvre so we have to work within the budgets available to us and try to get better value for money, effectiveness and efficiency.
There is an agenda for transforming public services that was set out not only in the OECD report and the task force that worked from it but also in the work that was done sectorally in discussions directly with the social partners. They have an intrinsic merit and should be addressed and dealt with on that basis. It is in everyone's interest in terms of maintaining jobs in the public service that we would have those flexibilities and have that transformation take place. We must negotiate that and find means by which we can all address it but, in fairness to the social partners, including employee representatives, there is a recognition that all of that work can be done.
On the question of being able to provide a solution to the present industrial relations problem, I note what the president of ICTU had to say, that it is both desirable and possible to achieve it. We must see if there is a realistic basis on which to engage.
Yes, there have been pay cuts and they have rightly been progressive with respect to the highest pay cuts being made to those on the highest incomes. Any sense of fairness would dictate that. There are also people in the exposed private sector who have lost wages, many of whom unfortunately have lost their jobs. The security of employment in the public service is a premium that must be recognised by us all and those who are involved in the public service rightfully acknowledge that is something in the present circumstances that is of value and worthwhile. There are many in the private sector who, unfortunately, because of market conditions have not been in a position to maintain employment levels in comparison to what they were before and others who are currently unemployed.
Although there have been political efforts to suggest the contrary, at no stage have I denigrated public servants. On the contrary, I recognise that in health, education, the Defence Forces, the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners and the Civil Service, and a range of other areas, there are civil and public servants who are seeking to make a contribution to the economic renewal of the country and for the country to come through the present difficulties. I have never suggested otherwise.
The responsibility of Government is to discharge its duties based on the budgetary realities and the fact that we have a configuration in our spending as it is means that every public expenditure programme must make a contribution. Yes, there was a Government decision on cuts to wages on the basis that we felt to ask the non-pay side of expenditure programmes to take the necessary hit would have greatly affected the provision of services to those who most require them. We can all have a political debate about whether these are right and correct decisions and people can make up their own minds but the realities do not change. If there were not to be control of the public and pensions pay bill, we would have had to have hit the services side. That is something the Government was not prepared to contemplate in present circumstances and, therefore, that balance had to be provided.
My answer to the Deputy is that there is a strategy in place. We must find a realistic basis for engaging on this issue. We are not starting from a blank page, a lot of work has been done. It has an intrinsic merit anyway. It must be proceeded with and I do not believe industrial relations disputes will achieve the objectives set out. They will weaken rather than strengthen our ability to provide public services in the future given the precarious budgetary situation we have. All of us must look to the wider issues and common good. We are all members of the community and must all work within the budgets so we can build for the country again and ensure we can remunerate public servants in the future on a sustainable basis based on growth returning to the economy and getting through the present financial crisis.
The Taoiseach's response makes the claim that a strategy is in place. We do not know what that strategy is, however, because the Taoiseach has not shared it with us. Everything he has done runs totally contrary to the notion he has a strategy in place. The exercise of governance of the public services has had a direct effect on services. The Taoiseach claims he tried to avoid a curtailment of services but there has been absolute curtailments of services and that continues apace across all Departments.
The Taoiseach is right that it is a collective Government responsibility as it affects almost all Departments. What is the Taoiseach going to do about the notice served for 7 April by 4,500 low paid workers in the hospital network in the capital city? As of that date, they have served notice of intent to intensify their industrial action. Talking about it is not good enough. What is the Taoiseach prepared to do to initiate meaningful engagement with SIPTU to ensure we will not face a calamitous situation across all the hospital sites in this city? The first responsibility of the Government is to ensure that the situation does not arise but the only way that can be done is by engaging in a serious and concerted effort to meet the needs of those workers and their colleagues who are represented across the public service.
Had I proceeded along the lines suggested by Deputy Ó Caoláin and avoided the decision on the overall public service pay and pensions bill, which we believed was necessary, the curtailment of services would have been all the greater. The Deputy cannot have it every way. He cannot tell us to maintain services and avoid reductions in pay while continuing with a budgetary strategy in respect of which he claims to accept that €4 billion has to be saved. If he wants to save €4 billion, he should save it but he has to find the money. If it his view that €2 billion should be raised through taxes, he should explain to the people why he thinks the unemployment level should be higher than is the case at present. Does he not think it is already too high?
We have to work within a budgetary framework which has a deficit of the order of 11%. That is not a sustainable level and it has to be reduced in the coming years. The luxury of the Deputy's position is that he can stand up and say all these things to his constituency groups and people will say he is great. However, he does not have the responsibility for making it all add up.
We did.
You did not.
We shared our document with the Government
Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
I am sorry, I had a look at Sinn Féin's economic policy——
We set out a real alternative——
——and I heard it articulated on radio and television over the weekend.
——and we are not afraid to make the difficult decisions.
Deputy Ó Caoláin, allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
I do not agree with it. I listened to the Deputy's leader as he extolled the virtues of his party's economic policy but I think it is wrong. More taxation would increase unemployment.
Not from those who can afford to pay.
In regard to the idea——
Not from those who can afford to pay more tax.
——that he is not going to control the public service pay bill while increasing services, the Deputy must believe in a bigger deficit and taxpayers taking on more debt in the current circumstances. He believes in paying more interest on debt and increasing the burden on the State to fund these services.
We believe in creating work by stimulating the economy.
Deputy Ó Caoláin, please.
There is so much we can do as a State in the current circumstances. The Deputy referred to a stimulus package of €3.2 billion but we have already put in place a package worth €6.4 billion.
No, you did not.
I will not get into an argument on the matter. I am making the point that the Deputy is not correct to suggest we do not have a strategy. I am not prepared to walk away from the budgetary strategy which the Government has set nor am I in a position to do so. No responsible Government in our position would do that.
However, I am interested in finding a realistic basis on which to engage because I do not believe industrial action will achieve the objectives set out for it. The situation facing the country requires us to sit down on a realistic basis and with a recognition of what needs to be done. An entire agenda has already been discussed which has intrinsic merit and should not be conditional on anything because it is the best means by which we can address the concerns of public servants regarding their future pay and security of employment. It is by looking at the non-pay side that one avoids having to consider the pay side. The Government has no wish to consider the pay side but the realities are as they are. Two plus two equals four and one can add the zeroes later.
The Taoiseach said several times that he is prepared to engage if a realistic basis can be found. I accept what he is saying and think he is correct but the realistic basis being put forward by the Fine Gael Party is to agree there will be no further cuts to core pay or allowances in the next budget and that the Government should be prepared to negotiate with unions to reverse the pay cuts over time in return for real transformation, reform and efficiencies of a kind we have never seen before. Does the Taoiseach not agree that is the realistic basis on which to engage and, if so, why does he not proceed on it?
The role that the Government will play in this matter will be consistent with our budgetary strategy while at the same time providing a means by which people can constructively engage with us on these matters. I am not here to negotiate in public or to suggest that the matrix or form which the Deputy is suggesting is comprehensive in terms of the full agenda that needs to be addressed. There is no point in calling for talks unless we know a realistic basis exists on which to proceed.
I wish to raise a point of order.
I ask the Deputy to be brief.
As the Ceann Comhairle is aware, we are all members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. One question has been asked and answered on Taoiseach's Questions and nobody else has been allowed to ask supplementary questions.
We will have to deal with this matter on another occasion.
There was one question and a number of speeches. We either have Question Time or we do not.
We cannot deal with this now.
Will we have statements on the Taoiseach? It is ridiculous. One question was answered and only a handful of Deputies were given the opportunity to ask supplementary questions.
