Vol. 773 No. 13
1. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the date on which he intends to publish the cost benefit analysis and full details on the operation of the proposed voluntary redundancy scheme within the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43504/12]
5. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide details of the public sector voluntary redundancy scheme recently announced; if he will identify the areas in the public sector from which these redundancies are to be targeted; the targeted net saving to the Exchequer; and the provisions that will be put in place to protect service provision for citizens. [43503/12]
With the permission of the House, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 5 together.
The Government is committed to reducing the size of the public service and to creating a leaner more efficient public service. At mid-2012, public service numbers were 292,000. This is 28,000 below the peak number of 320,000 reached in 2008 and is comparable to the 2005 staffing levels. Service levels have been largely maintained, and in fact increased in some areas, notwithstanding these considerable staff reductions due to increased productivity and workplace flexibility.
The Government has agreed to accelerate the programme of staff reductions in order to maximise pay-bill savings. Where staff surpluses are identified a targeted voluntary redundancy scheme would be made available for selected areas throughout the public service.
Identification of staff surpluses is under way. Following the agreement by Government of my proposals, my ministerial colleagues are actively examining particular work areas, bodies, locations and-or grades at which voluntary redundancy can be targeted because of changes to workplace configuration or service delivery models. Of course, there will be full regard for the skills needs and priorities of Departments now and in the future during this process. I stress that there will be no automatic right to redundancy and all applications will be subject to an ongoing business need. This will ensure that critical front line services will be maintained.
Final decisions on numbers reductions to be achieved in each sector will take account of the surpluses identified by Ministers and reported to me in respect of their portfolios and of expected rates of retirements in those sectors over the next few years. Of course, a full cost benefit analysis will be required as part of this assessment. When this assessment has been completed further details of this scheme will be made available by my Department.
This is the first time that there is flexibility. As I explained on many occasions in the House, we did not control the previous exit package because it was staff simply taking a choice for themselves to go before the reduced pay impacted on their pensions. This one will be to identify where there are genuine surpluses of staff where we can offer voluntary redundancies.
I thank the Minister for at least coming into the House and giving us some information. As recently as lunchtime, I checked the Department's website for any statement on this from him and I could find no statement to date. The only record I can find anywhere is something that was published on RTE on 2 October and, obviously, somebody had a word in somebody's ear. There was no press release, there is no case made for it and there is cost-benefit analysis. It sounds as if the Minister will make it up as he goes along.
He might give us the timescale. He has stated that it will take a few years. One would have thought, the way this announcement came out, that it would happen quite soon. Is it now to be over a two-year or three-year period?
He might tell us who will present the business cases. There was the recent example of the business cases for allowances and they went nowhere. What will happen with the business cases here, who will present them and will they be accepted?
What kind of redundancy payments will be involved? I cannot find anything on the public record officially from the Department. Somebody stated it will be like the HSE package, that it could be three weeks per year of service plus two weeks statutory redundancy. If so, from the taxpayers' point of view, that would be an expensive redundancy package relative to the cost of the staff who took early retirement this year. The Minister might give us an indication of which would be the most beneficial from the point of view of the taxpayer - this or an early retirement scheme.
The one matter on which I agree with the Minister is that any new package needs to be targeted. The Minister stated that he would examine Departments to identify where there are surpluses. As part of that important exercise, he must also examine Departments to see where there are shortages. I need not tell him about the Department of Social Protection where applicants are waiting between nine and 12 months for appeals to be dealt with, cases to be examined, means tests to be carried out or medical examinations. There are shortages. Will the Minister take this into account and where he identifies surpluses, will he move them to known areas of shortages?
I am taken by the Deputy's series of questions and his interest in having detail. He will find that everything we do will be spelled out in detail.
To be clear, there is no scheme at present. I indicated after a Government meeting, because we were asked what was discussed at Government which is a normal occurrence after such a meeting, that I had brought a proposal simply to request every line Minister to look, in the context of all of the agencies and Departments under their purview, to see if there are surplus staff. As Deputy Sean Fleming will be aware, we spoke about areas in the past where there were too many staff.
There are areas that are under pressure for staff and that is why the architecture of the Croke Park agreement in so important. Seamlessly and without fuss, we have moved thousands of staff across the public service under the Croke Park agreement. It is one of the unsung achievements of the Croke Park agreement. The funny aspect of it, as I have stated previously, is that if one achieves something - for example, getting the new deal on sick pay - without a row, it is taken as if it is nothing. If one achieves the same thing with a major row, it is regarded as a significant achievement.
I am awaiting reports from all my colleagues on the staff they think are surplus. A number of them have come back already and there will be significant numbers in some areas. We will conduct the analysis in a profile of a number of years to see how many would be leaving in any event. We do not want to have staff who will go in any event in a year or two to be a cost. To those who are appropriate, we will be applying HSE terms.
On the point the Deputy makes on social protection, no line Department has got more additional supports than Social Protection to meet the significant increase in appeals and applications because the volume, variety and complexity of social welfare payments is such that this support is needed. Part of the reform agenda my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, is pursuing is to rationalise that so that there is not the complexity and multiplicity of allowances.
I thank the Minister for his response.
I assume that this new scheme is designed to reduce numbers in the public sector by 10,000 by 2014. That was the Minister's stated target. I am working on the assumption that this is the mechanism that he has identified for doing that, but he might confirm that for me when he responds.
The difficulty that my party has here is a fundamental one and it relates to the moratorium on recruitment and the embargo. The Minister states that he will ask line Ministers to identify surpluses of staff. I very much hope that when he has all of this detailed information he will publish all of it and the publishing will not be selective.
I would certainly like to know where are these areas of alleged staffing surpluses. We can very readily identify the places where there are staffing shortfalls but it would be interesting to see where, in the view of Government, there are surpluses.
I do not know how the Government can take a further 10,000 workers out of the system and still guarantee the protection of services. The Minister said service delivery has increased and improved but that is not the experience of the end-user of the services. That is the reality and any Member of the House who does any level of constituency work will vouch for that. Indeed, anybody who has taken the time to talk to people who are working in the public service will also know that.
I urge the Deputy to frame a question.
Can the Minister assure us that all of the data, not a half-baked version of it, in respect of the so-called surpluses, the areas where there are staffing shortfalls and the full detail of any cost-benefit analysis will be published in full? On publication of that data, I ask the Minister to allow us the opportunity to debate and discuss it, rather than have him as Minister simply making an announcement to the general public. Could we have the courtesy at least of a full and detailed debate based on that detailed and comprehensive information in this Chamber?
I will deal with the last point first in terms of engagement with the process. I had hoped that there would be full engagement with the real challenges that we face as a country and a people. That is why I published the medium-term fiscal horizons for every Department over three years, so that people would know what is required in terms of reductions in expenditure. I also published all of the documentation relating to the comprehensive review of expenditure so all of the policy options that were submitted would be known. I was not overwhelmed by the analysis done by the Deputies opposite in terms of the options that should be taken, but so be it. That is fine. The Government will have to make decisions on the path to recovery.
Regarding the first question the Deputy asked about numbers, she is correct that, as of this minute, there are approximately 292,000 public servants, which is a reduction of 28,000 on peak. The target we have set for 2014 is 282,500, which means a reduction of in or around 10,000. Obviously, natural retirements will remove a good number of people from the service but our estimate is that this will not be sufficient. That is why we are introducing a targeted redundancy package, to supplement the natural retirements, as well as those leaving the service for other reasons.
In terms of the general thrust, we are delivering public services differently. That is what the whole reform agenda is about. Different skills mixes, different working arrangements, different rostering and so forth, are enabling us to achieve more with less. That is what everybody is trying to do in this economy to make it more efficient. The public service has responded extraordinarily well to that real challenge.
I wish to put on record that we discussed this targeted redundancy package in this House last June or July, before the summer recess. Some people were surprised by the announcement but if they had been listening to us in the Chamber they would not have been surprised. The matter was discussed here and flagged months ago.
I ask the Minister to confirm that this will be a Government decision rather than something negotiated under the Croke Park agreement. That agreement does not deal with reductions in numbers. That is a Government decision, like the early retirement package of last February. Such matters are Government budgetary decisions and the Croke Park agreement helps to manage the process but does not set the agenda for the numbers.
That is correct.
In terms of what is on offer and the offer itself, will that be a direct Government decision or will it be taken in consultation with the public sector committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions? Will the redundancy scheme be like the early retirement scheme, namely, a Government announcement to be managed afterwards?
One gets to a point with this theory of more with less where one runs out of rope eventually. The Minister is clearly minded to shed 10,000 more public servants. I ask him again to give an absolute commitment that the full details will be provided. I am labouring this point because when information was published in respect of, for instance, premium pay and allowances, it was not in any way robust or as comprehensive as one would require in order to be able to have an informed discussion on the topic. I really hope that when the Minister is planning to take such drastic action as to shed 10,000 more jobs in a climate of very high unemployment and when services are stretched to capacity, that at a minimum the Government that proclaims transparency will put up all of the information, including those areas where the Minister finds that, far from a surplus, there is a significant shortfall in numbers.
In response to Deputy Fleming's question, it is indeed a matter for Government and not a matter for negotiations. We have set the targets and we are accelerating those targets. We have reduced public service numbers to 2005 levels and it cannot be argued that we had a desperately understaffed public service back then. We need to look at all of the new technologies that are available. More than 300 services are being delivered online now. If the Deputies wanted to buy an airline ticket, they would not go to a staffed travel agency to do so as they might have done 20 years ago. We must be modern in the way we deliver our services because the people who are paying their taxes expect that of us.
In response to Deputy McDonald, we will be as transparent on this as we can be. I am sure I am not going to be able to satisfy Deputy McDonald in all of this because she does not want us to embark on this scheme at all. That is fine and she is entitled to her point of view. However, we can transform the way we deliver services. Tomorrow I am appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts and shortly after the finance committee to go through in detail the public service reform agenda and outline what we have achieved to date in a short period of time. It is less than a year since that agenda was published and we are bringing about a quiet revolution. I know there is screaming and shouting about parts of it but the general change that is happening is one that we will all be proud of when we are finished.
2. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will make a statement on his recent review of public service allowances and premium payments; if he intends to make public all data relating to the allowances including the grade and pay level of recipients; and the way in which he intends to deal with these allowances and premium payments into the future. [43502/12]
3. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the steps that he will take to ensure greater accuracy in the targets that he sets in view of the failure to reach the target set in respect of public sector allowances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43586/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
This Government is committed to securing sustainable reductions in the cost of the public service pay and pensions bill. The aim is to reduce the total cost of the Exchequer pay bill by some €3.8 billion in the period from 2009 to 2015, a large and sustainable fall in the cost of employing people to deliver public services by 2015. The reform of allowances is just one element of a sustained programme of cost reduction across the public service.
It is worth repeating that allowances are, and will continue to be, a normal part of the pay structure in the public service. However, allowances should only be payable in circumstances that meet the criteria set out for the review. Those criteria were that they should reflect the arduous nature or unsocial hours, including the need to remain on call at weekends and other times, clearly associated with the duties of posts; they should ensure work of additional value is actually received by an employer; or they should cover an actual cost accruing to the employee derived from their employment.
The allowances review conducted by my Department was the first comprehensive, public-service wide attempt to address outdated allowance-based pay structures across the public service.
There will be two consequences of the decisions taken by the Government on foot of the review. The cost of employing new public servants to deliver public services will continue to fall because we will no longer be paying them outdated allowances. The allowances review also showed structural weaknesses and a lack of transparency in the way in which certain public servants are paid. Pay structures across the public service will be radically reformed through the elimination or modification of certain allowances and the restructuring of pay scales. As well as structural improvements and greater transparency, these measures will generate substantial, sustainable savings in future years as well.
To assist people in understanding the basis of the review, details of business cases together with the outcome of the review have been published on my Department’s website. Details of salary scales in respect of all public service grades and details of allowances payable to those grades are retained at sectoral level and can readily be supplied in respect of each sector by the Department in question.
The review done to date is just the first step in what will be an ongoing process.
My Department has written to sectoral managers instructing them to engage immediately with staff interests with a view to securing their early agreement to the elimination of departmental allowances to current incumbents where no business case exists to pay those allowances to new beneficiaries. Departments have also been asked to identify other allowances, including legacy allowances, for elimination from current beneficiaries. Departments were requested to submit detailed proposals, including setting priorities and indicating timeframes for completion of this process, to my Department. This process will enable further savings to the Exchequer to be quantified.
With regard to the indicative savings target of €75 million for 2012, it was never the case that the allowances review targets was included in the budgetary provision. The intention was that any moneys saved would be available to offset against unallocated savings in the overall spending ceiling. The size and duration of the review could not have been anticipated and I accepted earlier this year that the specific savings targets for 2012 would not be realised. This does not impact on the achievement of the pay bill budget for the year, which will be fully realised.
I am confident that the decisions taken by the Government on foot of the review will go a long way towards making our public service leaner and more efficient, as well as delivering services on a cost effective and value-for-money basis.
The business cases to which the Minister referred were flimsy to say the least. In many instances they were simply reiterations of a status quo which was not to be disturbed and there was little substantive analysis. He has made a dog's ear of the matter. He backed away from his own estimate of €75 million but, worse, he deliberately targeted new entrants, just as he did in respect of the new pension regime for the public sector. It is acceptable on his watch that a young teacher who starts this month will earn €11,000 less than somebody who commenced two years ago.
Does the Deputy know how much teachers are paid?
It is completely unfair.
It is not true.
I ask the Deputy to put a question.
I ask the Minister to hold his horses. A number of issues have to be factored in if we are to get to the bottom of the question of allowances. One of the core considerations has to be pay equity in the system. A small group of individuals enjoy very high incomes, whereas the mass of public and civil servants are on modest wages. When one makes a calculation on premium payments and allowances, one must not only look to the public purse and the overall pay bill but also to the sustainability and spending power of workers in these categories. There are no prizes for driving those who are struggling to get by into poverty. I ask the Minister why he has not taken that into account in his analysis and ask him to do so when he deliberates further.
Not for the first time, I am bemused by Deputy McDonald. She is arguing that we did not go far enough while at the same time accusing us of failing to take account of spending power. I do not doubt that we would be having a different dialogue if we had taken the decision to eliminate all the allowances I have identified in the first annexe to the report, which would have taken €4,000 out of the pocket of every garda and thousands of euro from teachers and firefighters. I am not sure the Deputy is in favour of that.
The Minister knows full well I am not.
We have analysed the impact of the spending power of public servants and social welfare recipients on large parts of the economy. These factors are taken into account. This the first time we have drilled down into the composition of pay. I have been honest in acknowledging that it is much more complicated than I first envisaged. Under the pay regime that has built up over decades, allowances were subsumed into core pay across swathes of the public service to meet various sectoral agreements at different times. Relativities, in terms of people in different categories of employment, were part of the pay structure. It is an extraordinarily complicated task to disaggregate that system.
Now that we have seen the picture we have set about eliminating those allowances which are not justified by using the mechanisms of Croke Park to buy them out, except for those which are such important parts of core pay that it would be unacceptable to force the sector of our community which receives them to carry an inordinate burden. We are going to create new pay structures across the public service so that the allowances are subsumed into normal pay structures. These are complicated issues but my Department and I are determined to address them. People sometimes view these matters at a surface level but true reform is much more complicated and demanding. I am determined to deliver a truly reformed public service at the end of the day.
I acknowledge that the Minister does a difficult job and I wish him well in it. I do not want to knock public servants, particularly those on lower pay grades. I do not want to take money from the pockets of gardaí, nurses or other front line workers. However, the Minister or his Department fostered the expectation that €75 million could be saved and the public were left with the impression that a lot of fat could be trimmed. I am disappointed that somebody gave him those figures - I do not think he came up with them himself - when the actual amount was a paltry €3 million. Would it not have been better to impose a percentage cut across the board? We will have to improve our ability to make projections because the performance in this instance was very poor.
I am not sure whether Deputy Mattie McGrath asked a question but I will respond in any event. I do not think he wants to pick on any category of public servant, whether teachers, nurses or gardaí, simply because of the way in which their wages were historically constituted. I do not think any Deputy would have been happy if I had taken that route, other than, perhaps, one or two.
He took that route with new entrants.
I have stated publicly that if I was starting again I would not set out the estimate of €75 million. The genesis of the figure is simple, however. The total for all allowances, including the big chunk that is core pay, is €1.5 billion and 5% of this total is €75 million. I believed we could set out a target of this nature. I did not put it into the budget arithmetic and it was not included in the pay targets but sometimes it is important to set an objective. I will not be enthusiastic about setting further objectives because apparently it is a mortal sin to drill down and discover that a target is not achievable. It is more honest to admit the truth.
My overall target is not €75 million; it is €3.8 billion. I am required to achieve a reduction in pay of €3.8 billion in gross terms, or €3.3 billion in net terms. A dialogue will be required on how we are going to achieve these targets. However, alongside reducing numbers and the pay bill I also want to develop a more efficient public service which offers relative security to those who work in it so they can plan and spend in our economy once again. I have heard shrill voices from those who argue that low paid public servants are somehow responsible for our economic woes. That is not true but certain people want to peddle that claim and we read about it far too often. Public servants have taken two pay cuts. They have taken a pay cut of 7% on average and also pay a levy of 7% on average. They are working harder and doing more.
However, we need to do more and I am asking for more. Tomorrow with the Taoiseach I will meet the implementation body to set a new agenda. We are driving change and reform. This issue should not be looked in a narrow sectoral way but in the round. The Department intends at the end of its five year mandate to have in place a much more efficient modern public service of which we can all be proud and which will be cost effective, efficient and deliver the services people need.
The Minister knows full well that I am asking him to ensure he does not take another red cent from the pockets of the average garda on the beat, firefighter or clerical officer. We have had this discussion.
From whom does the Deputy want me to take money?
I want the Minister to deal with the issue of high pay rates in the public service and impose a cap. We have had this discussion time and again. The Minister has claimed he is the defender of public servants on low and middle incomes.
I am doing that.
The evidence is that the Minister has deliberately targeted new entrants to these jobs, running through their pension entitlements and allowances. That is what he has done rather than target his efforts. He must recognise the pay inequity in the system and target his efforts at those areas in which there is scope for savings. Undoubtedly, there is scope at the top. The Minister mentioned using the Croke Park mechanisms to buy out allowances. Will he set out for us what this means? Will he set out the scale and indicative costings?
I too thank the Minister for his efforts and honesty in admitting the figure was 5% and that the savings achieved did not come to the €75 million ingrained among the public, leaving egg on everyone's face when only €2.5 million or €3 million was saved. The Taoiseach said he was writing to all line Ministers asking them to come up with savings. Like Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, I do not want another cent to be taken from lower paid workers. I am also concerned about new entrants being penalised, particularly in their starting pay. Pension entitlements are a different matter, as we have seen some exorbitant pensions being paid to senior civil servants and former politicians, which is morally wrong.
I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is with the Minister. With reference to a contribution I made earlier today, the Minister of State denied a cohort of well paid and cosseted individuals close to the centre of power had escaped the pension levy under the watch of the previous Government. The Minister should inform his colleague of the truth of this. It was appalling and sent the wrong message to every public servant and everybody else. The people concerned are still getting away with it. It is the people close to power who are protecting themselves who must be targeted.
There are a number of questions to deal with. I will deal, first, with the issue of high earners. The Sinn Féin position has always been very clear. It suggests some nebulous rich tax could be imposed that would solve all of our problems, that no general tax need be levied and that there is no need to cut any service. The number of high earners in the public service who earn more than €100,000 is less than 2%.
It is almost 7,000.
It is, in fact, less than 6,000.
The figure is 6,791.
I will give the Deputy the exact figures when we reach that question. She spoke about the targeting of young teachers. I do not have the exact figure, but a young teacher starting off is on a salary of approximately €32,000. In order to not double the impact on teachers whose starting pay is now 10% lower than it was and whose allowance for obtaining a degree has been removed, we have abolished the first three steps in the incremental scale. This gives them a fair start. We looked at the graduate entrance rate in the private sector and the figure mentioned is well up with it. To be honest, if I was asked who was damaged or hurt the most in the economy, I would not say it was the ones starting out now but those who bought a house at the peak of the boom - those between the ages of 35 and 45 years - and who are now in negative equity. A teacher starting today will buy a house at a figure 60% lower than the cost five or six years ago. There are inequities in society that we must address over time. The insolvency legislation and all of the other measures the Government needs to introduce will help to address them.
With regard to the Croke Park mechanisms, we may have a chance sometime to deal with this issue in committee, as I do not have time to explain now what I have written in a letter to line Departments. However, I will be happy to give the information to the Deputy which we may discuss in committee.
Deputy Mattie McGrath mentioned pensions. He is right in what he says. I have looked at ways to take back some of the pensions. Under the financial measures in the public interest legislation I introduced last year, I provided for a take-back of an additional 20%. That was as much as I was advised I could do with that category. The Deputy is aware of what is contained in the programme for Government with regard to pensions which is something on which we have worked also.
4. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the expected level of jobs that will be created by the end of 2012 and 2013 respectively as a result of the stimulus plan announced in July 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43505/12]
On 17 July the Government announced its plans for an additional €2.25 billion investment in public infrastructure projects. The most important contribution capital investment can now make is in providing the capacity for the economy to grow which will, in turn, create employment. The stimulus package included €1.4 billion to fund the proposed new public private partnerships, PPP, programme. This investment is directed towards projects that meet key infrastructural needs and are in line with the priorities in the Government's investment framework. These projects will form the first phase of a new programme of PPPs designed to stimulate economic growth and create employment. As the phase 1 projects are progressed and as funding permits, projects that could be delivered as part of further phases will be considered.
Job creation is a critical priority for the Government. This stimulus will help to sustain jobs in the construction sector which has been very badly hit. The investment in the phase 1 package is expected to generate significant numbers of jobs. Previous analysis of each sector indicates that the investment will generate around 13,000 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs. It will also create much needed social and economic infrastructure and aid economic recovery. Projects have also been chosen on the basis that they are spread across the country and will provide employment in many local areas. When deciding which projects to invest in, the labour intensity of all projects was carefully considered.
My Department chairs a steering committee which is closely engaged with the relevant line Departments and their agencies to ensure all of the projects identified are advanced. Work is being finalised on a timetable of projects to determine when projects can be rolled out. I expect that a number of tenders will issue next year. An important feature of the PPP programme roll-out is that jobs will be created and sustained at all stages from project preparation, design and construction. Activity has commenced and I understand a number of tender competitions are under way, including those for legal advisory services and technical advisory services for the Grangegorman project, the schools programme and the justice programme.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The HSE will also be issuing tender notification for technical advisers for the primary care centres shortly. This should help to provide certainty and sustain employment in these sectors. There will be considerably more activity next year as project preparation continues.
The steering committee is also looking at ways to maximise job creation as part of each tender competition in line with procurement regulations. With the NDFA, the committee is also examining ways to encourage SME participation by facilitating access to the programme. The NDFA is working with Enterprise Ireland to organise awareness raising events across the country.
My question specifically asked how many jobs would be created by the end of 2012 and 2013, respectively, but the Minister did not give an answer. Therefore, I can only assume the answer is zero.
That would be wrong.
The Minister said that after six or seven years some 13,000 might be involved in the programme. He cut capital expenditure this year by €750 million and will cut it by €550 million next year. This amounts to almost half of the value of the stimulus package. Therefore, it does not even go half way towards meeting the cuts announced for this year and proposed for next year. Therefore, it is only a minor abatement of the cuts in capital expenditure. The Minister is now talking about drawing up a timetable, tenders being issued in 2013 and, possibly, planning applications going through for some of the infrastructural projects proposed.
Does the Deputy have a question?
How much work on these projects will physically start in 2013? I take it that nothing will happen this year. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many people will be employed specifically as a result of this initiative in 2013.
Sometimes I reel at the brass neck of Fianna Fáil. Why are we reducing the capital programme? Why are we reducing expenditure at all? We are doing it because Fianna Fáil ruined us. Under the programme that the previous Government set before we came into office, a deficit of 2.9% had to be reached by 2014. As a result of our negotiations with the troika, that has been pushed back to 2015. The level of cuts and expenditure would have been much deeper, of necessity, if Fianna Fáil had stayed in office. Taxes would be much higher, of necessity, than those we have negotiated. That is the reality we have faced. As I have said, this Government's economic strategy has three strands. First, we must work towards a balanced budget. We are doing that incrementally and with great difficulty. It will be done by 2015, with the forbearance of the Irish people. Second, we need a stimulus to go with the balancing of budgets because it is not enough. That is true not only in the Irish context but also in the European context. We have worked might and main in our discussions with the European Investment Bank and other investors to put together an investment package with significant job creation potential, involving 13,000 jobs in its first phase. We are driving to have many of those tenders up and running next year. Some of the planning is happening right now. Some employment will happen before the end of this year, for example in the pre-planning and preparation for the Grangegorman project. Third, we need to deal with the banking debt. Along with my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, I am working might and main to deal with that legacy of the promissory note the previous Government left us.
The Minister introduced party politics into this. He will get his answer back from me.
I saw the Deputy doing politics when he was grandstanding yesterday.
The Minister was not there.
Is the Deputy going to stay in his chair this time?
I would love him to look-----
Is the Deputy going to walk out again?
The Minister feels that he is in a position to comment even though he was not there.
I remind Deputies that this is Question Time.
I am responding to the Minister's response. The Government is producing its second budget. It might not have dawned on the Minister that the public has realised that he and his colleagues are in government. I do not hear President Hollande of France blaming Nicolas Sarkozy for his difficult choices.
The Deputy must not be reading his speeches.
I do not believe David Cameron goes around-----
The Deputy is not reading his speeches.
The Minister thinks the solution to the Government's problems is to continue to pass the buck to those who were in government in previous years, but the people of Ireland have moved on from the past.
I doubt it.
The Deputy wishes that were the case.
They are more interested in the present and the future.
They have not forgotten the damage done by the Deputy's party.
The Minister knows that if the Government is not happy with the programme it inherited, it is free to renegotiate elements of it each quarter. It has the ability to do that and it has done it in certain cases. The Minister cannot hitch it onto the old Government. This Government has the flexibility to renegotiate any aspect of the programme that it does not like. The Minister and his colleagues have been in government for two years at this stage. The Government is approaching its second budget. It can continue to blame history as long as it likes. Believe it or not, people are more interested in the jobs they are looking for and the budget that is coming up than in going on about what happened in previous years. I ask the Minister not to continue this cover-up job when he is making his remarks in future. I asked how many jobs will be created in 2012. I want an answer. I know the answer is "zero". How many jobs will be created in 2013? The Minister has failed to answer that question here today. I want to hear the answer, if there is one.
The people changed the Government last year. Unfortunately, they could not change the economy. We are fixing the broken economy that was left to us by the previous Government. We will fix it in our five-year term. I know the Deputy and his colleagues will not be of any help. Last year, we received their pre-budget submission the day before the budget, which was a most helpful input into the analysis of what should be done. The stimulus package we have published was hard-fought and hard-won when we negotiated it. It is being funded by the sale of State assets. According to the agreement that the Deputy's party agreed with the troika, every shilling from the sale of State assets would have to be used to pay down debt. We have-----
There is no figure in the agreement for the sale of State assets.
Walk out again. Go on.
Run out again.
The Minister has made an inaccurate statement. There is no figure in the memorandum of understanding for the sale of State assets.
The Deputy shouts people down and walks out because he cannot take it.
The Minister should not try to rewrite history.
I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. The Minister has the floor.
The problem with the Deputy is that he wants to declare year zero, as Pol Pot did, so that everything that happened before his party left office, having wrecked the economy, will be forgotten. That is not going to happen. We are setting out the record as it is. We are working incrementally to fix things. I have set out the three strands of the economic policy we will deliver. The first phase of the stimulus programme which is part of that policy will create 13,000 jobs. We are still negotiating other elements of it. We will address strategic infrastructure and meet the requirements of the programme for Government by rolling out a different health strategy for this country, meeting the demographic demand in education, providing the Grangegorman facilities and doing all the other things that were set out in the first phase of our stimulus plan.
