Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected cost of the Government Information Service for 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29187/10]
Ceisteanna — Questions
Departmental Expenditure
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff assigned to the communications unit in his Department; the total cost of this unit for the first half of 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29188/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total projected costs to date in 2010 of the communications unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30226/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the total cost of the development and maintenance of the www.MerrionSt.ie website; the intended purpose of the website; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32322/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected cost to his Department of the www.MerrionSt.ie website; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32323/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in relation to the creation and development of the www.MerrionSt.ie website; the projected annual running cost of this project; the number of staff assigned to it; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34662/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
There are four staff assigned to the communications unit, two executive officers, one staff officer and one clerical officer. The projected cost to date of the unit for 2010 is €181,701, with €84,156 being a direct cost to my Department and the balance being paid by three other Departments from which staff have been seconded to the unit. These costs represent a reduction of 6% on the 2009 cost, 20% on the 2008 cost and 27% on the 2007 cost. This has been achieved through greater efficiency in the operations of the unit and the application of Government policy on reducing staff numbers.
The GIS comprises the Government Information Service, the Government Press Office, the communications unit and the Government website team. The projected cost for the GIS in 2010 is €1,308,100 which represents a reduction of 12% on the 2009 cost. The Government Press Office and the Government Information Service provides, on behalf of myself, my Department and the Government an information service on Government policy to the public through the national and international media and promotes a co-ordinated approach to media matters across Departments. The Government Press Office issues press releases to the media, briefs political correspondents, organises photocalls, information campaigns and ministerial representation on current affairs programmes. It also disseminates information to the domestic and international media on the web and via e-mail. Staff in the Government Press Office are available after hours and at weekends to answer media queries.
The cost of designing and developing the website was €18,150. Implementation, support and independent security testing cost a further €3,116. Computer hardware and software cost €6,284 and audio-video equipment cost €6,785, bringing the total cost to €34,335. The site is being hosted by the Local Government Computer Services Board and the annual hosting cost is expected to be in the region of €4,000. Apart from these costs, the project was developed using existing in-house resources in the Department. Ongoing technical maintenance and support is being provided by staff in my Department's IT unit with support from an external web services company on an "as needs" basis. The team that maintains and updates the site content is also drawn from existing departmental resources, with the exception of two temporary staff — journalism graduates — requiring relevant work experience who were recruited at clerical officer level. There is no net additional cost as these posts have been funded from a reallocation of the overall staff budget, which has fallen by 11% since 2008 and is likely to be further reduced in the 2011 Estimates.
It is clear that the manner in which information is transmitted through the Internet is changing. It is important that the Government's ability to provide information via the web reflects this change. The website, www.MerrionStreet.ie was developed following a study of best practice by more than 20 other Governments. It provides citizens with a single on-line location where the activity of Government can be viewed. The latest press releases from all Departments are available on the site, which over time will become a valuable archive of Government information. Its main purpose is to make the work of Government more accessible to citizens by reporting Government news in a user-friendly manner, using audio-visual tools and Internet capabilities, including YouTube, Flickr, Facebook and Twitter.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply and would like to raise with him a couple of questions in regard to the final portion of it. I understand that the new website, www.MerrionStreet.ie, which went live in July, cost approximately €40,000 to set up and was inspired by the www.Number-10.gov.uk website. I also understand that the dedicated website, www.taoiseach.gov.ie, which is already in existence could have been redesigned to provide the information contained on the www.MerrionStreet.ie website. Were tenders sought in respect of the work carried out on the latter and, if so, how many were received? What analysis was carried out in respect of the need for this website? Would it have been possible to redesign the www.taoiseach.gov.ie website to allow it to include the user-friendly, on-line information for citizens to which the Taoiseach referred? The interview the Taoiseach gave to his Government’s deputy press secretary on the EU-Asia summit was placed on this website. Was this to avoid the media in general or was it for the purpose of utilising the website? Is it his intention to use this site more regularly in this way?
The www.MerrionStreet.ie website relates to the totality of Government activity and not simply that relating to the Department of the Taoiseach. The website was specifically developed for this purpose. As stated earlier, we must use all the modern Internet tools that are available in order to ensure that information is provided by the Government in a user-friendly way. I am of the opinion that the cost involved is well justified, particularly in the context of the service that is being provided. A tender was not required in respect of this matter because the work was carried out through the use of in-house resources. That work involved an examination of best practice across a range of 20 other government’s websites and not just one.
I had understood that the cost——
On the question of information, we meet members of the media directly and I did not realise that one cannot use a Government website to disseminate information. Regardless of whether it is the media or a website, one can use these channels in whatever way one wishes.
To get the message out. The website in question makes provision for web chats with Ministers and the publication of thought-provoking e-mails and letters from members of the public. There are some who use other methods to publicise thought-provoking messages. The website has not yet been used to any great degree for the purpose to which I refer. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to ensure that more of these thought-provoking e-mails will be published and more web chats with Ministers will take place on the website?
At this time last year, the Taoiseach decided to explore the appointing of a single provider of information across all Government Departments as part of a package of cost-cutting measures. However, nothing was done about this. I understand that when a formal tendering process was entered into, the bids received were in excess of the cost relating to the provision of the current service. Will the Taoiseach verify whether this is the case? In other words, will he indicate whether, when he followed through on his intention to appoint a single information provider, the tenders received in excess of the current cost of providing information? I understand that the tender process was carried two years ago. In light of the changed economic circumstances, it might perhaps be worthwhile seeking new tenders because, as has proven to be the case in other sectors, the bids received might be much better value than those previously submitted.
I will have to check with those who deal with the service in order to answer the Deputy's first question. A suggestion was made in this House, on foot of a question which was probably tabled by the Deputy, that we might consider appointing a single information provider. I examined the matter and provided a detailed reply to the relevant question confirming the position in this regard.
The projected cost of the Government Information Service for 2010 is €242,269. This reflects a 6% reduction on the cost in 2009. In light of the fact that there is absolute urgency with regard to reducing costs to a minimum while retaining effective services, is it the Taoiseach's view that this is the bottom line regarding what can be achieved in the context of cutting the costs relating to the Government Information Service? Given the constraints and pressures now being felt, in this no more than any other area there must be a radical examination of what can be done. Is that the bottom line in terms of the GIS?
Every area of expenditure is looked at in the context of Estimates and what is available for the following year. As I said, this area has contributed to a reduction of 27% since I came to office.
I have been listening to the Taoiseach's replies to Deputy Kenny and I am still not clear why it was necessary to set up a new website, given that the Government already has the www.gov.ie and the www.irisoifigiuil.ie websites for official purposes. There are also separate departmental websites for each Department and a citizens’ information website. What was intended to be provided on this website that could not be made available on existing sites?
I note that there was a visit by a delegation from the Chinese Government recently but the Taoiseach did not do any media interviews following the visit. Instead, he chose to be interviewed by an officer of the Government information services for the www.MerrionSt.ie website, with the interview posted on the site. Is it intended to use that website more frequently for interviews where Ministers or the Taoiseach will be interviewed by officers of the Government information services? This would be as opposed to doing direct interviews with the public media.
I do interviews with the media all the time on any subject and where any issue can be raised. This medium of the Internet was used to set out the work of the day, what took place at meeting and its relevance to the Irish public. As I understand it, I am not obliged to pick and choose what media I deal with. I deal with them all, including the Internet. There is no more to it than that and if I get the opportunity to use this Internet medium to bring to public attention what it is the Government is doing and what is happening in the course of my job, I do not see a problem with it. One of the great criticisms from the Opposition is a perceived dearth of information and that we need to get more information out there. It seems that when there is more information out there, the Opposition has a problem with that as well.
It would be intended to use that medium in addition to all other media to ensure that people are made aware of particular Government activities etc. The purpose of the new website is that of a service to citizens who wish to get a clearer view of the work of Government. Each Department has a responsibility to communicate its actions and policies and all Departments have websites as part of the process. By and large, the websites of Departments are text-based and the new website is capable of far greater integration of audio-visual material and with its links to social media sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Flickr and Twitter, it allows for the sharing of information between citizens.
All Departments communicate their press releases to www.MerrionSt.ie. It is the job of the site to add an audio-visual dimension to the key information and make it available for distribution on more modern Internet channels. All Government press releases should be visible on the site by means of really simple syndication, RSS, feeds. The site’s editorial team is tasked with communicating information on Government policy and action in a format more suited to modern Internet methods. Its role is to report the work of Departments, Ministers and the Taoiseach in a factual manner, which is what it does.
The Taoiseach indicated the purpose of the website is to provide more information to citizens. Why would a citizen looking for Government information do a Google search for www.MerrionSt.ie? Where did the name come from and what was the idea behind it? If a citizen wants to find out what the Government is doing and does not know which site to visit, I would think that person would look for the Government website and be directed to it. The Taoiseach will appreciate there is a distinction between information and propaganda. This is a propaganda site.
What is the Deputy's basis for this claim?
I looked at the website.
That covers it so.
I thought I was on the Fianna Fáil website. There is no difference between what is on that site and what one gets on Government party sites. It has various press releases, interviews and so on. It is not an information site but a form of propaganda, that is to communicate good news from the Government. That is fair enough and I am not objecting to that. However, there were already information sites in place. This site was set up to propagandise for the Government. It would have been more appropriate to leave that to the political parties in government.
Deputy Gilmore makes the charge of propaganda but does not give an example. That is an interesting way of making political assertions. The website has been well commented on by media sources, both international and national, as a good source of information. Most websites of this nature are text-based while this one introduces an audio-visual element to make it more user-friendly. No one seems to have a problem with it except Deputy Gilmore.
The Taoiseach is a bit surly today. I was smiling when——
It has to be propaganda because Deputy Gilmore says so.
Deputy Gilmore made mention of Iris Oifigiúil——
If Deputy Gilmore says it, it must be true then.
I had to push the Taoiseach a bit.
It is not a neutral website anyway.
——and other opportunities the Government has. It needs none of them when it has Independent News and Media working to present it in the best light it can.
Deputy Gilmore would know more about propaganda himself. He is harking back to the old days of political instruction down in a little cottage in County Meath over a weekend.
Bring them on.
To cite an example from www.MerrionStreet.ie — can I have the Taoiseach’s attention?
I apologise. Deputy Gilmore's crowd was more interesting than Deputy Ó Caoláin's. While Deputy Ó Caoláin's just took it all in, Deputy Gilmore's boys had to be trained. The old Stickies' days.
That is okay. We will read about it in The Irish Independent tomorrow.
The website in question is an effort on the Government's part to contrive some sort of a good news website and to put it in the best light possible. I was interested by an article on the site titled, Health Innovation — Tubridy Cuts Out the Waste. This Tubridy was not the Taoiseach's broadcasting friend but a consultant neurologist at St. Vincent's who claimed he cut waiting lists by 25% by the use of the HealthLink on-line service. While that is fine for the hospital in question, it only gives false hope to many other people because the service in question is not commonly used across the country. The critical story is not that this particular consultant has been able to reduce his waiting times by 25% for initial consultations; the real story is how many have to wait for them elsewhere.
It is questionable whether www.MerrionStreet.ie was required at all. While it probably will not take an enormous amount to maintain, I am more concerned about the promise made some time ago to secondary schools that IT equipment would be provided for every classroom. Some 15 months later, nothing has been provided.
The Deputy is going off on a tangent.
This IT roll-out project is far more important and beneficial to a raft of young people preparing for the severe challenges that will face them when they leave school than the MerrionStreet.ie website.
On the matter to which the Deputy referred, as I said it is the use of technology for the purposes of dealing with people who have been waiting for services which has eliminated 25% of the cost. It made a lot of difference to the people who got in much quicker as a result. I do not see why——
For the lucky ones.
If other consultants took up the same practice, maybe they would reduce their fees by 25%. Bringing that to public attention is a good thing but it seems that the premise of the Deputy's questions is that the Government's entitlement to bring it to public attention should in some way——
The Government could do it differently. I have brought it to public attention a lot more effectively than www.MerrionStreet.ie by mentioning it here in the House——
I doubt it, Deputy, unfortunately.
——which, with respect, if the colleagues in the press reported it, would do the business.
I apologise, Deputy. I do not think the number of hits on the Deputy's website——
That was open to the Taoiseach.
Deputy, can we have the Taoiseach without interruption please?
I do not think the number of hits on the Deputy's website is quite as high.
Deputy, we need to move on.
We are talking about hits, I suppose. The issue I am trying to get across is that these are good examples of good practice in the health services which need to be, and are being, brought to the attention of the public by whatever means necessary. I find it amazing that people would regard that sort of information as something in which the public are not interested. They are very interested in it because it will help them or a relative or member of the family to whom it would be germane at some stage.
What about secondary school children?
If the Deputy tabled a question to the Department of Education and Skills, he would get a full up-to-date response on what the ICT strategy is in terms of providing for public schools.
There is no up-to-date information.
Social Partnership
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30220/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach to report on the recent activities of the National Implementation Body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30222/10]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he next plans to meet social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32314/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:10 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had, if any, with trade unions, employers’ representatives and others in the context of the social partnership process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32332/10]
Enda Kenny
Question:11 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the Irish membership of the EU Economic and Social Committee; the reason a position has been removed from the farming community and allocated to Bird Watch Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34962/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, together.
I met with representatives of IBEC and ICTU in July, when we discussed the budgetary situation and recent economic developments. In addition, there is ongoing engagement between each of the pillars of social partnership and officials in my Department on a range of issues. Indeed, I addressed the IBEC human resources leadership summit on 30 September. Deputies will also be aware that there is regular contact on issues of concern to the social partners through bilateral contacts and consultation structures across relevant Government Departments. The Government remains open to further appropriate discussions with all five of the social partner pillars under the ten year framework provided under Towards 2016 and we believe that continued social dialogue will play an important role in maximising consensus during this period of economic instability.
In particular, the Government will be seeking the views of the social partners as we prepare a national reform programme as part of the EU 2020 process. Preliminary meetings have already taken place at official level to scope out the key areas of concern to each of the pillars and further discussions will take place over the coming months. I look forward to hearing the views of the social partners as that process develops.
Ireland has nine places on the European Economic and Social Committee, EESC, and our nominations are divided equally between the three constituent groups of the EESC, that is, employers, employees and what are known as various interests. The various interests group on the EESC comprises representatives of a wide variety of organisations, including non-governmental organisations, farmers organisations, co-operatives and non-profit associations and environmental organisations. The EESC is mandated to consider environmental issues and environmental sustainability is a key focus of European policy. Other countries have long had environmental organisation representatives among their nominees.
For the first time, Ireland's nominees to the various interests group of the EESC included a representative from the environmental pillar. This change reflects the decision which was taken by Government last year to create a fifth pillar of social partnership to represent environmental concerns and was not in response to representations received. The environmental pillar of social partnership consists of 27 organisations with a diverse range of interests. The environmental pillar selected an employee of BirdWatch Ireland as its nominee on the committee. She is a representative of the 27 organisations in the environmental pillar and environmental interests more generally. The environmental pillar representative will be able to draw on the combined capacity for economic, social and environmental research and analysis of the constituent members of the pillar and its secretariat.
The National Implementation Body, NIB, comprising Government, employer and union representatives, has played two valuable roles over recent years. First, it has exercised national level oversight of the industrial relations scene, assisting parties in actual or threatened disputes of national importance and providing a mechanism for ongoing review of trends in industrial relations in particular sectors. As part of this high-level role, it has also operated as a forum for dialogue between employers and trade unions on the broad status and conduct of industrial relations in the State.
Second, the NIB has sought to promote compliance with the terms of successive national agreements. While the operating context for such a role has changed, it is clear that engagement between Government, employers and trade unions in regard to particular industrial relations disputes can be beneficial to all parties and is in the public interest.
In recognition of that role, the Government agreed to participate with the procedures agreed between ICTU and IBEC under their Protocol for the Orderly Conduct of Industrial Relations and Local Bargaining in the Private Sector. This protocol provides for the continuation of tripartite engagement to oversee industrial peace and stability, and is to be reviewed by the parties at the end of 2010.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about the recent revelations on the SIPTU national health and local authority levy fund account, which had €2.7 million transferred into it between 2002 and 2009. The latest revelations indicate that perhaps some social partnership funds were used here also. Does the Taoiseach have any information on this? Has he carried out or is he carrying out an investigation into it? I understand the HSE auditors counted 31 foreign trips across the globe. The impact of these revelations has been to cast a very poor reflection on social partnership and travelling to study social partnership in other countries. What is the story?
I cannot comment on whether any such funds mentioned by the Deputy were involved. As Deputy Kenny knows, the question is being looked at by the Committee of Public Accounts and when we have that outcome and that from the two relevant Departments and the HSE, when the facts and circumstances are known, there will be an opportunity for everyone to look at the situation based on the facts as established.
Clearly, as I and the Minister for Health and Children have emphasised, any potential waste of public funds is a serious matter. Deputies are aware of the ongoing investigations into these matters and should await a full and proper analysis of the issues and allow the Committee of Public Accounts to consider these issues based on the fullest possible set of facts.
I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General did his report and the Committee of Public Accounts is looking at this. However, there are two fundamental elements which are relevant to the Taoiseach's Department. He should be able to confirm that nobody from the Department of the Taoiseach travelled on any of these social partnership investigation trips and he should certainly be able to ascertain whether any social partnership funds were used.
I am not sure questions on this matter are contemplated under this series of questions.
If the Deputy puts down a question on it I can answer it with accuracy and certainty.
Fine.
The Croke Park agreement came about following a request from the Government for reforms following cuts in levels of pay. Since the Croke Park agreement was ratified in June no efficiencies or savings have been made. For example, in education, on which there was a great deal of discussion, the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 agreed that by the start of the 2010-11 school year there would be the introduction of an additional hour per week to facilitate teachers to engage in duties determined by school management; an extra hour per week in institutes of technology and universities; ensuring that post-primary teachers are available for three timetabled class periods per week under the supervision and substitution scheme; a review and revision of teaching contracts; a review and revision of the employment terms and conditions of special needs assistants for those employed in the VEC sector; and a review of the academic employment contracts for institutes of technology by 31 August 2010.
This is one area where there was a great deal of discussion and argument and eventually agreement, but the Government has sat on its hands completely. Nothing has happened in respect of implementing the efficiencies contained in the Croke Park agreement. What has been the big blockage to implementing agreements that were hard fought, hard worked out and negotiated before the agreement was concluded? Why has there been no impetus in the context of a more effective service and implementing the conditions agreed in Croke Park? Why has there been no Government impetus, urgency or initiative about this to show everybody that an agreement like this can take place in the interests of those who work in the public service and those who receive the services those public servants are able to deliver?
This is being driven by an implementation body which has arranged to obtain from the various Departments, agencies and offices action plans for the purposes of proceeding to implementation in the coming weeks and months. In the meantime, significant work on the transformation programme is ongoing in all sectors and savings continue to be delivered against a background of falling numbers. I am confident that the implementation of these action plans will deliver the type of changes which are required to secure cost savings, minimise the impacts of current resource constraints on service quality and availability, and improve services through the use of technology and other means. It is true to say also that in the context of Estimates decisions that are being made, and where resources will be allocated, these changes will become clearly required and the implementation body is facilitating that engagement.
The Taoiseach is correct in that he is confident that these changes will bring about greater efficiencies and a more effective service. On the educational block of the Croke Park agreement to which I referred, however, none of those elements have been implemented and the agreement stated clearly that these would take effect from the start of the academic year 2010-11. Being confident is one thing but having the drive to put it through is something else.
In respect of the agreement itself, as the Taoiseach will be aware, my party accepted the pay element of the Croke Park agreement, although with a different view in respect of the provision of infrastructure, for instance, in respect of our NewERA programme. When does the Taoiseach expect that the changes agreed within the Croke Park agreement will start to take place or is this a situation where the Government does not intend to do anything about it?
It is important to point out that the education situation, where the ASTI recently accepted the agreement and the TUI rejected it, involves having to deal with that issue. That is on of the reasons some of the aspects on education have been delayed. We will be insisting that the agreements we reach will be implemented but there has been an IR issue in the background which must be dealt with.
With regard to the Croke Park agreement itself, it sets out the short-term, medium-term and longer-term issues that are being dealt with and the structural changes that must be implemented. All of the agreement, as negotiated, has been agreed in good faith and needs to be implemented in good faith.
The formal social partnership arrangements were contained in the document Towards 2016 which was subsequently revised and called Towards 2016: Review and Transitional Agreement. Do those two documents still apply? Are those still live and operational and does the Government consider itself to be bound by the terms of those agreements?
In respect of the implementation body set up to oversee the implementation of the measures contained in the Croke Park agreement, there was a reply from the Minister for Finance to Dáil questions on Thursday last in which we were told that the implementation body held three meetings since it was established and that it was concentrating on the implementation of the agreement, including putting in place the structures at sectoral level and seeking from public service management their action plans for the implementation of the provisions of the agreement. What Departments have submitted action plans for the implementation of the provisions of the agreement?
With regard to the Deputy's first question, the ten-year agreement framework within which we operate social partnership continues to apply. Like all social partnership agreements, this process takes account of the budgetary situation as it develops. It is on the basis of maintaining and providing for stability and a good public finance position that these arrangements are entered into. Those are what are being implemented.
I do not have the detail of each departmental office but I understand responses have now been received from all sectors — Departments and offices — and will be reviewed by the implementation body in the coming weeks. Therefore, the answer to the Deputy's question appears to be that all the responses are in.
Two questions arise from the Taoiseach's reply. When was the last time there was a meeting together of all the social partners or all the main elements of the social partnership arrangement, namely of Government, employer bodies and trade unions in particular?
Second, with regard to the action plans being made by Departments, do I understand correctly that the proposals to which the Taoiseach referred are the action plans for the implementation of the provision of the Croke Park agreement and that those action plans have now been submitted to the implementation body? Will he outline what will now happen to those action plans? Is it the case that they have to be agreed within the context of the implementation body and the procedures that have been set down for dealing with them?
I do not have the date the last plenary session of the social partnership process was held. I will have to get that for the Deputy.
Was it in the past year?
I thought so but I will have to check that. There have been meetings with the various social partners in various guises at different times but not all together. There have been a number of meetings. The last one with the business and employer pillar was on 19 July. The one with the trade union pillar was on 16 July. The one with the farming pillar was on 4 February. I met representatives of the ICMSA on 22 July and I am due to speak at its annual meeting on 29 October. Officials from my Department met representatives of the IFA on 29 July and I am due to meet them on 26 October. I last met the farming pillar as a whole on 27 October 2009. Officials from my Department met the community and voluntary pillar on 23 July — the previous meeting was held on 8 June in regard to the EU 2020 process. I last met representatives of the environmental pillar on 27 October 2009 and, similarly, I last met representatives of the community and voluntary pillar then. Department officials met representatives of the environmental pillar on 23 July in regard to the EU 2020 process. The detail deals with one aspect of the Deputy's question.
As I said, the information I have to hand is that action plans have all been submitted. The implementation body will review those over the coming weeks and ascertain what way it can put them into place based on contacts between both sides of industry.
If the only meetings that have taken place on social partnership have been effectively bilateral meetings between the Government and individual components of the social partnership arrangement, and there has not been a plenary meeting in recent times — clearly, the Taoiseach cannot remember when there was last a plenary meeting of the social partnership process — is it not fair to say that social partnership, certainly as we used to know it, is pretty well over?
I do not accept that.
I will also take a final question from Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, told the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 4 October that the Government intends to comply with the terms of the Croke Park agreement on pay and reform of the public service? Will he confirm the assurances contained in the agreement that pay and pensions would not — I emphasise the words "would not" — be further cut and there would be no compulsory redundancies in the public service in return for flexibility in redeployment terms in the public service? Will he give a clear commitment that nothing in the forthcoming budget will be in breach of the Government's position on the Croke Park agreement?
On the ESRI recommendations vis-à-vis an across-the-board social charge, does the Taoiseach agree that this is a regressive proposal which will favour higher income earners at the expense of lower income earners? Will he state that it will not be contemplated by the Government?
Obviously, I cannot discuss the budget with the Deputy. On the Croke Park agreement, those who support the agreement and are anxious to implement it are anxious to work on the basis of the agreement as are those who have supported it and had the benefits that derive from it. That is the position on that matter.
On the Deputy's question on the issue of a social charge, the Minister indicated in his previous budget that he was preparing proposals on how he could bring about a situation in which the various levies and PRSI could be looked at in an integrated way for the future. Many people on low incomes are excluded from the tax net. This is about providing a sustainable way forward to ensure that the benefits of the commitments and social taxes are provided for in future with the demographics we have.