Tuesday, 10 Feb 2009

Ministerial Travel.

Questions (1, 2, 3, 4)

Enda Kenny

Question:

1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his office to regulate the use of the Government jet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40577/08]

View answer

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the procedures used by his office to regulate and monitor the use of the Government jet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46100/08]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his Department in respect of the use of the Government jets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46595/08]

View answer

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if changes are proposed in the procedures for the use of the Government jet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1778/09]

View answer

Oral answers (35 contributions)

The Taoiseach

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The procedures my predecessor outlined to the House on use of the ministerial air transport service, MATS, most recently on 22 April 2008, have not changed.

The position is that my approval is required prior to the service being used. Procedurally, requests for use of the service are made by Ministers' private secretaries to my office and are dealt with, in the first instance, by the staff of my office.

Requests are examined by my staff with regard to the need for and purpose of travel, the destination and other logistical details. Any necessary clarification or further information is sought at that point. All screened requests are then submitted to me for my consideration and approval, if deemed appropriate. Once approved, all operational matters are settled directly between the office of the Minister in question and the Department of Defence or Air Corps.

No changes are proposed in the procedures for the use of the ministerial air transport service. All applications for use of MATS are considered in the context of its efficiencies.

Deputy Enda Kenny

Is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, speaking for the Government when he says that members of the Government could make substantial savings by travelling on commercial flights? Does the Taoiseach have any figures on the use of commercial flights by Ministers?

Is the Gulfstream jet back in operation? I understand it costs €7,100 an hour. It was out of commission for several months in 2008 and, after a major overhaul costing almost €2 million, something went in it three weeks later and it was stranded for a while. What is the situation? I know it is an aging aircraft, but if these machines are well serviced, they have a very long lifespan. Is the Minister, Deputy Gormley, speaking for the Government when he says there will now be a big shift onto commercial air flights? What is the status of the Gulfstream? Is it operational and fully ready to fly?

The Taoiseach

Where appropriate, scheduled flights are used by Ministers. In addition, use is made of the ministerial air transport service when it is the only way for a Minister to travel to meetings and carry out his or her ministerial functions. It offers the type of flexibility that scheduled flights cannot provide. It is not tied to set routes or timetables. The jet can also use military as well as civil airports and it can lead to significant savings in travel time.

When considering applications for the use of Government jets, regard is had to the availability of scheduled flights as well the differences in financial costs and levels of emissions. A balance has to be struck. Even though sometimes there may be significant cost differentials, other factors such as the level of flexibility available, the purpose of the travel, destination, route, timings and passenger details warrant use of a Government jet as opposed to alternative scheduled flights. They are used, as the Deputy knows, interchangeably.

Regarding the Gulfstream, as the Deputy knows, it has been in service for 17 or 18 years and has an annual overhaul as required by the service guidelines applying to it. It is operational and is kept in proper repair by the Air Corps.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I recognise the value of having a jet for the prime minister of a country and the busier Departments. We had this argument before.

The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has been very upfront about carbon footprints. There is no extra carbon footprint when one takes a commercial flight because it is going anyway. I do not believe Prime Minister Blair ever had the use of a government jet.

Deputy Noel Dempsey

Always.

Deputy Enda Kenny

Had he?

Deputy Martin Cullen

He used the RAF.

Deputy Noel Dempsey

He always flew with the RAF.

Deputy Enda Kenny

He used the RAF, but that is a different carbon footprint, as the Ministers know.

Does the Taoiseach have a figure for the carbon footprint per kilometre of the Gulfstream and the Lear jets? I am not sure how that is calculated, but if it can be calculated for cars, it can be done for jets. Given that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is very agitated about this matter, I note that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Mary Coughlan, and the Minister for Defence, Deputy Willie O'Dea, went on a failed mission to Austin, Texas, to talk to Mr. Michael Dell prior to the Dell announcement, which, we are told, cost €164,000. I just checked before coming to the Chamber and an economy American Airlines flight leaving Dublin tomorrow and returning in two days would cost €1,000 for the two Ministers. However, since they are Ministers, it would cost €9,000 if they travelled business class to Dallas. An internal flight to Austin would be very reasonable.

When the request was made for both Ministers to fly to Texas, the Taoiseach's Department vetted it. Would it not have been considered that substantial savings could be made if both Ministers flew comfortably in business class to Texas? Has the Taoiseach since issued reminders that, where possible and within reason, people should fly commercially when such flights are available?

The Taoiseach

On the specific issue, there was a requirement to meet with the managing director of Dell very quickly in regard to impending decisions and it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.

I am informed by the Department of Defence that, in keeping with normal practice in the aviation business, it is not possible to assign an exact cost to any particular mission. However, on the basis of an approximation to actual costs, the average direct cost of €4,000 per hour would be a more reasonable measure. These are costs which arise while the aircraft is being flown and include maintenance, fuel and support services. One is at times required to meet a number of people from one stage to another and the jet is used for that purpose. Scheduled flights could not be used in situations where, for example, one is going to Luxembourg and Berlin before continuing on to London.

Deputy Enda Kenny

I recall the former Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, stopping off at various locations.

An Ceann Comhairle

Never mind that.

The Taoiseach

The idea in these modern times that Government business can be conducted without requiring the use of these facilities is not correct. In the interest of getting work done and then returning, it is important they are used. It is also important, where it is appropriate and in line with timings, etc., to use scheduled flights. I have done so myself.

Deputy Enda Kenny

In regard to carbon footprints, how are these calculated for a jet such as that used by the Government?

The Taoiseach

Specific questions about levels of emissions, etc., should be addressed to the Minister for Defence.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, was explicit on this matter. He stated that we could get rid of the Government jet in the morning and it would not cause us any problem whatsoever. Does the Taoiseach agree with that statement? Would he agree, for example, that since the first purchase of a Government jet in 1980, there has been a huge increase in the availability of commercial flights and access from this country to various parts of Europe and elsewhere and that perhaps the Minister is correct that getting rid of the Government jet would not cause any problems?

What is the status of the Minister's statement? The notion of what is termed "collective cabinet responsibility" used to exist. I would like to know if the Minister's opinion is in fact the Government's opinion and how the Taoiseach might feel if the House put the statement to the test. What is the Taoiseach's view of the Minister's statement?

Arising from the Taoiseach's earlier reply to Deputy Kenny on the procedure whereby Ministers apply to his Department for the use of the Government jet and are either approved or refused, how many applications were received by the Department in the past year for the use of the jet and how many of these were refused?

The Taoiseach

I do not have that information to hand and will have to get it for the Deputy. The Department of Defence has information on the detailed arrangements regarding the numbers of flights, who goes where and whatever else.

In regard to the first matter, a Government jet is necessary to conduct our business. It is not required in all cases or at all times by all Ministers and it is not used in all cases or at all times by all Ministers. In the context of doing business, it is necessary to make these facilities available. In the course of one's work, occasions arise when one moves from one capital to another. It would not be possible to do that through scheduled flights alone but it is not something that is sought to be used inappropriately. The Government jet is used in the conduct of Government business and so that one can get back the same day rather than wait overnight for flights, thereby ensuring one is available the following morning or day to do one's job here at home. It is part of the conduct of business of Government and it is the practice of all Governments of which I am aware, in particular those in the European Union.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

Is the Government jet used where there are available direct scheduled flights between Irish airports and the capital concerned? For example, is it used in connection with business in Brussels and, if so, how many times has it been used given the reasonably regular scheduled service to that city?

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Is it necessary for the Government to maintain three aircraft?

Deputy Dermot Ahern

Two.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The Taoiseach indicated that one of the aircraft is being used by the Air Corps. Would it not be better for the Government to dispose of it or to sign it over to the Air Corps?

The Taoiseach shared with us statistics in regard to the use of Government jets by Ministers. Can he provided us with the statistics in regard to the use of commercial airline services by Ministers as a first choice? Does the Taoiseach have information in respect of foreign travel catered for by scheduled flights operated by commercial airlines and, if so, will he share that information with us?

Last Saturday, we all raised a cheer in celebration of Ireland's win over France. When listening earlier to questions from my colleagues, I was reminded of the Taoiseach's rugby interests and his attendance last year at the Heineken Cup final in Cardiff. The Taoiseach may recall the heavy water which he and Ministers Cullen and Martin got into in respect of their exploration of Welsh-Irish relations during their attendance with Mr. Morgan at the cup final in Cardiff. Did the Taoiseach, arising out of that early experience in his role as Taoiseach initiate any new regulations or standards which Members, Ministers or taoisigh should meet in respect of the use of the Government jet or jets? Will the Taoiseach accept there was quite a brouhaha in that regard at the time? It certainly raised some questions that merited address.

Leaving aside inappropriate use of Government jets by Ministers and taoisigh, will the Taoiseach comment on inappropriate use of Government jets for the transport of unofficial representatives. For example, for the visit last year by the Minister, Deputy Harney, to the United States in an effort to inform herself of further measures to privatise health services, I understand she was accompanied by her husband.

Is it appropriate that those who are not Government Ministers, including family, acquaintances and so on — where does one draw the line? — have the opportunity to accompany Ministers on ostensibly official business representing the Government? If this is the case, is it frequent or infrequent? Is there any regulation in regard to offsetting the cost through a contribution? Arising out of the exposure of that trip, did the Taoiseach take any steps or further actions following his Cardiff experience to set in train more appropriate guidelines for the use of Government jets into the future?

The Taoiseach

As I said earlier, the same regulations apply now as applied in my predecessor's time; there has been no change in the arrangements.

With regard to the question of accompaniment, if people are on official visits, it is possible to be accompanied from time to time by one's spouse, although it does not often happen.

With regard to the question of the use of scheduled flights, I speak for myself and if the Deputy wants more general information he would be best to put his questions to the Minister for Defence. In regard to my own situation, since I became Taoiseach I have travelled to the United States and Japan on official visits by scheduled flights. I have travelled by way of Government jet to Brussels for Council meetings and I have travelled to a number of capitals during the course of preparing for European Council meetings by Government jet. It would not have been possible to conduct those meetings in the time available where it not for the Government jet.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Nobody is in dispute about the usefulness of the facility in regard to specific instances. However, given the Taoiseach has indicated that, as Taoiseach, he has employed the use of commercial airline scheduled flights, does he agree that the information in regard to the ratio of use between commercial airline scheduled flights and the use of the Government jet, across not only his own Department but all Departments, would be a useful aid to having a better picture and understanding of the balance, if such exists, and if it applies as a balance across the board?

Finally, from the experiences I have instanced that attracted a degree of public attention and some critical voices, has the Taoiseach in the course of his tenure introduced any new rulings or indications of what he expects from Ministers? Has he communicated to his colleagues across the Cabinet the standards he would like to see applied in the use of this facility?

The Taoiseach

I do not have to apply my standards to anyone else. The standards are simply applied as appropriate in line with the regulations. I have always used these facilities on the basis of official visits or official work. As I said, the workload for officeholders both at home and abroad is such that on many occasions obtaining a scheduled flight place is not an option, particularly due to the times involved, with many meetings held in the evening and so on. Other work is ongoing during the course of the day, including coming to and being answerable to this House. When one leaves for a meeting abroad, there may be criticism as to why one is not still at home, answering questions, having probably done so for an hour or two that morning.

One cannot win. The bottom line is that one has to do the job that has been assigned to one to the best of one's ability, using the facilities as appropriate, and obviously being mindful of the cost effectiveness of these issues where long flights and other flights can be accommodated by scheduled arrangements with normal aircraft, which are often used, as I have indicated.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

I was surprised to read in the newspaper this morning the comments of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, concerning the Government jet. I have no difficulty with the Government using a jet, because the job of the Government is to govern and there is a need for one. Has the Minister, Deputy Gormley, raised the matter of getting rid of the Government jet directly with the Taoiseach? Will the Taoiseach confirm, if he has the details before him, how many times the two Green Party Ministers and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Trevor Sargent, have used the Government jet since taking office? This is typical of the Green Party, speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

The Taoiseach

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 17, inclusive, together.

Agreement was reached on the review and transitional agreement 2008-09 on 17 September 2008. The transitional agreement sought to provide certainty and stability during a period of great change and difficulty facing the economy while maintaining the orderly conduct of industrial relations.

The transitional agreement was subsequently ratified by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the main employers' body, IBEC, on 17 November.

I have noted the recent letter from IBEC to ICTU on the application of the pay terms of the agreement in the private sector. I understand that representatives of ICTU and IBEC have had direct discussions on this and other issues related to the implementation of the agreement. In this regard, I believe it is important to note that the transitional agreement contains robust "inability to pay" provisions specifically designed to take account of current economic realities. I was disappointed that the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, did not consider it possible to ratify the agreement last November. While recognising the very real difficulties experienced by CIF member companies, I am of the view that these difficulties could be addressed successfully within the social partnership agreement, provided all parties approached the issues in a constructive way.

In the period subsequent to the conclusion of the transitional agreement in September, there has been a serious deterioration in the global economy, greatly exacerbating domestic economic and fiscal pressures. The Government responded by bringing forward the date of the 2009 budget and subsequently published a framework for sustainable economic renewal in December, which outlines a set of measures to support a return to sustainable growth and jobs in the medium term, while also identifying the need for short-term measures to stabilise the economy and public finances.

The Government invited the views of the social partners on implementation of the framework for sustainable economic renewal and on the immediate fiscal adjustment required in 2009. The social partners engaged in extensive and meaningful discussions on these issues over recent weeks.

On Wednesday, 28 January the Government and social partners agreed on a framework for a pact for stabilisation, social solidarity and economic renewal. That framework acknowledged that urgent and radical action was required to restore stability to the public finances, to maximise short-term economic activity and employment and to improve competitiveness.

Last week there were intensive discussions between the Government and social partners to attempt to agree within that framework on the key elements of the fiscal adjustment required.

In the context of the discussions, the Government tabled proposals to achieve a full-year saving of €1.4 billion through the introduction of a pension levy in the public service. The unions decided that they were not in a position to agree to that proposal. While this is regrettable, it does not mean that the engagement was a failure. The overall framework for eliminating the current budget deficit by 2013 was agreed and the need for a €2 billion adjustment this year on a credible basis was also agreed. The need for a significant contribution to be made by the public service pay bill in achieving that adjustment was also agreed, as were the links to the economic renewal strategy published in December.

The Government's decisions last week on achieving the €2 billion adjustment were taken within these parameters and in accordance with principles agreed with the social partners. In respect of the public service, implementation will be discussed in the normal way with the public service committee of ICTU.

The social partnership process focuses on engagement and the sharing of analysis, as well as the forging of specific agreements. The discussions over the past few weeks have deepened the shared understanding of the challenges facing the economy. The inability of ICTU to agree to the Government's proposals does not mean that the partnership process has failed. The overall framework agreed with the social partners remains in place and the Government, for its part is committed to its implementation. We are available to continue discussions on the implementation of the overall framework.

I am chairing a Cabinet committee which will implement the Government strategy for economic renewal. A senior officials group chaired by my Department supports the work of this Cabinet committee. Relevant Ministers will report regularly on progress in the key action areas, as well as bringing forward new proposals consistent with the strategic direction of the framework in their respective areas of responsibility.

Given the importance of focusing on the agenda for economic renewal, and the role of investment in infrastructure in that regard, the work of the Cabinet committee on housing, infrastructure and PPPs, and its supporting cross-departmental team is subsumed by these new arrangements.

Apart from the pay provisions, the transitional agreement contains a comprehensive set of commitments dealing with such issues as employment rights and compliance; workplace learning and upskilling; employee representation; the regulation of employment agencies and temporary agency workers; and pensions and public procurement.

Following ratification of the agreement, work has commenced on the implementation of these commitments which, in the employment law area in particular, will involve several significant new Bills. In addition, a monitoring and review process with representatives from IBEC, ICTU and all relevant Departments has been established to oversee progress on all of these issues.

The agreement also sets out an agenda for public service modernisation which builds on the extensive commitments contained in Towards 2016. There is an ambitious programme of work getting under way in this area on foot of the publication last November of the report of the taskforce on the public service and the Government statement on transforming public services. The Cabinet committee on transforming public services will oversee this transformation programme.

The national implementation body, NIB, which comprises representatives of Government, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and IBEC, and is chaired by the Secretary General of my Department, continues to meet as necessary to oversee delivery of the industrial peace and stability provisions of the Towards 2016 transitional agreement.

The NIB has dealt with several important disputes in recent months, including the issue of restructuring Aer Lingus, and is overseeing a process undertaken by the Labour Relations Commission which is aimed at supporting the implementation of a 37.5 hour working week for nurses. Meetings of the body also provide opportunities for informal discussions on some broader issues relating to the social partnership process and the industrial relations climate generally. These discussions are held regularly.

The National Economic and Social Council's last few meetings discussed Ireland's current economic crisis and will continue to contribute to the evolution of thinking in this regard. Its work programme for 2009 also includes the following studies — the role of the European Union in Ireland's economic and social development; preparation of Ireland's first social report; climate change and sustainable energy; standards and accountability in human services in Ireland; and innovation — widening and deepening Ireland's innovation policies in the context of globalisation.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

The Taoiseach referred to the transitional agreement which the social partners negotiated last September. Is that agreement not now in tatters? The Construction Industry Federation said that it would not partake in it. IBEC, which ratified it, announced recently that it will not honour its pay terms. Last week in the House the Taoiseach effectively said the same, that in respect of employees in the public service the pay terms of that agreement cannot be honoured. A string of industry representative bodies covered by the joint labour committees have indicated they are having difficulty paying the terms of the legally enforceable employment regulation orders in their industries. Since the agreement was negotiated the Taoiseach announced a budget which imposed an income levy, or tax on incomes, a reduction in a variety of tax reliefs applying to pay as you earn, PAYE, workers and the introduction of, or increase in, several levies and charges. In addition, he announced last week a 7.5% average so-called pension levy on public service employees which is in effect a pay cut for those employees.

While there is much lip service being paid to the concept, principle and desirability of social partnership, the reality is that the agreement at the heart of the social partnership process is now in tatters. There is little or no prospect of the pay elements of that agreement ever being implemented.

The Taoiseach

We have social partnership structures and processes in place. It is true that we have a pay freeze in the public sector until October. We indicated that we would not be able to pay the instalments due in October 2009 and June 2010, due to current financial arrangements. Representatives of ICTU and IBEC have had discussions on the private sector pay agreement and others issues related to the implementation of the agreement. There are difficulties, strains and problems, as a result of the deterioration of the economy since the agreement was made in September. Assumptions have since considerably changed on things like inflation trends, which would have informed the basis of the agreement in September.

We have a voluntary system of industrial relations in this country. We have had centralised agreements in the past, and they have brought benefits. It is true that there are strains and difficulties, but it is only through continuing dialogue that these issues can be resolved.

Deputy Enda Kenny

There was a report in the newspapers today that ESB workers will take a two year pay freeze, and will not receive the 2.5% pay instalment due in June. What is the Taoiseach's view of corporate governance in the ESB, when the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources only heard of the acceptance of the 3.5% increase from the media? Does the Taoiseach regret that the pay increases were awarded in September, in view of the fact that the financial crisis has worsened considerably since then?

The Taoiseach commented last week that he would listen attentively if there was a tweaking of the pension levy proposals that might bring the unions back onside. A number of those union personnel were quite upset at being put in the position of being decision makers, when they were not elected so to be, even though their contribution has been important.

Has the Taoiseach made contact with the unions in respect of any tweaking on the pension levy proposal? If he has made such contact, has there been any response? Is he considering the idea of looking at the lower paid members of the public sector when evaluating the pension levy? Many of those members will be required to pay a pension levy for a pension that they will effectively never receive, as they will be entitled to the State contributory pension in any event. This is causing a great deal of anger and pressure on the families of thousands of those workers.

The Taoiseach

As I said, we have a voluntary system of industrial relations in this country, and employers and unions agreed a pay deal last September. There is flexibility within that pay deal for those companies that wish to claim inability to pay. If companies that have profits and are in a position to pay decide to proceed with payment, they will be in compliance with the pay deal that was agreed between the employers and the unions and ratified by the employers' body and the union members on 17 November last. That is the position on the first point.

The second point obviously relates to developments since then. That particular company's approach is an indication of the sensitivity it wishes to show to other workers who are in a far more difficult situation. It has stated its intentions, at this stage, regarding any further amounts that are due under the deal. I hope that will confirm that the company is trying to add to public confidence. There is a requirement to show restraint, even in those companies that have an ability to pay the first instalment of the deal. Agreement was reached between management and unions, in line with the voluntary nature of this country's industrial relations system.

I would like to make the point that at the time, Fine Gael's spokesman on finance issued a statement to the effect that he welcomed the deal. I presume the representatives of unions and workers in firms that are in a position to pay, or have the ability to pay, will be knocking on doors to inquire whether the deal that has been struck will be honoured.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

The customers will pay in the case of the ESB.

The Taoiseach

I refer to the agreement that was formally adopted and endorsed by representative bodies on both sides after the negotiations were completed. What was Deputy Kenny's other question?

Deputy Enda Kenny

I asked whether the pension levy scheme can be tweaked.

The Taoiseach

At last Tuesday's press conference, I was asked what attitude I would take in respect of proposals that might be made in respect of the levy. I indicated that if the scheme had the effect that was being suggested in some quarters, we would examine it. I did not say we would not look at it. Obviously, the substance of any proposal would have to be considered. I made it clear that its content would have to enable one to raise the €1.4 billion the scheme is designed to raise. As Deputy Kenny knows, it applies to all workers in all sectors of the public service, including civil servants, health care workers, members of the Defence Forces and teachers. I take the point that any levy, by its nature, is an imposition. We have had to consider this issue in the context of the need for a wider economic response to the budgetary situation in the public finances and to aspects of the wider economy such as competitiveness. We made it clear in our discussions that the bulk of the savings would have to come in this area. If we did not do so, we would have had to consider making savings in the social welfare system or through the dislocation of services in non-pay areas. That was the decision the Government took. It motivated the decision that was announced last week. As Deputy Kenny said, some people at the lower end of the scale have been taken out of the tax net altogether as a result of the introduction in recent years of a more progressive income tax system. Questions such as future pension entitlements, and the security of tenure one enjoys in the meantime, also arise. These are all considerations. Some people will have a difficulty with it in any event, regardless of the line of argument that is taken. Decisions were taken on the basis of the situation the Government had to confront.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

During the negotiations, why did the Government leave it so late before it proposed the public service pension levy? Surely the Taoiseach realised the unions could not have run with such a proposition. How does he respond to the view, which I have heard expressed by many people, that the Government made a conscious decision not to be serious about trying to reach agreement with the trade unions during the talks? How does he respond to the view, which has considerable support, that the Government had taken comfort from an already indicated IBEC agreement on the measures involved and decided, with the support of many in the media — not least the Independent Group which was in a full flow tirade of abuse directed at the public service and the trade unions — to hell with it, it would run with it, go for broke and let the negotiations collapse? Will the Taoiseach give us his view on these charges? Will he confirm that the social partnership process has been seriously damaged as a result of the collapse of the negotiations and that if it is to be rebuilt — this is an important point — the public service pension levy will have to be revisited?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will take a brief supplementary from Deputy Gilmore.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore

We have had situations in the past where we have had no national agreement and others where we have had national agreements where occasionally employers pleaded inability to pay. We have never had a situation where we have had a national pay agreement which virtually nobody will pay. The Government will not pay it and IBEC says it will not pay it. It is a pay agreement which is now a fiction.

Does the Taoiseach have any plans to reconvene a meeting of the social partners to arrive at a real understanding or agreement on matters relating to pay, taxes, levies and all that goes with it? The average family does not know where they stand. The prospect of a pay increase is off the table. In many cases, jobs are at risk. The question of pay cuts is on the table in many areas, including, effectively, in the public service. Now the Taoiseach and all his Ministers are talking about the prospect of tax increases sometime later in the year. The average family has no idea what their personal and family budgets are for the year. It would be a good idea if the Taoiseach reconvened a meeting of the social partners to get some real understanding as to the situation on pay, given that what we have currently is a fiction. The Government has an agreement on paper, which, as everybody knows, will not be implemented. It will only succeed, ultimately, in bringing the whole theory of social partnership into disrepute.

The Taoiseach

I do not agree with the contentions of either Deputy Ó Caoláin or Deputy Gilmore in terms of what they had to say. Deputy Ó Caoláin is the first, I understand, to question the good faith of the partners, including the Government, on the detailed and long negotiations that took place. No one who came out of those talks — people with whom we have been dealing on an ongoing basis — made the assertions he has just made. That indicates not only the inaccuracy of those assertions, but the fact that they have no foundation in fact.

Everyone strove to see if an agreement was possible. The engagement was sincere and real efforts were made. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it was not possible to find agreement on those aspects that were required in terms of the savings, but there was agreement that those sorts of savings were required, that public service pay, remuneration and pension would form an important part of the identification of those savings.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Why did the Taoiseach bring it in at late as he did?

The Taoiseach

I will come to that point, but I want to make this first point, namely, that the Deputy is incorrect because he is trying to suggest there was some sort of a predetermined outcome here. That was not the situation. We tried over a period of weeks, as I said we would, to see if it was possible to obtain consensus on the matter. It was not possible, unfortunately, but the Deputy does not have to question the bona fides of everyone who was in there. That is the easy thing to do when one is outside the door, playing the hurler on the ditch game. People were in there making a sincere effort, on behalf of their country, their constituencies and those whom they represent — they have different interests which are equally legitimate — to try to find a way forward in what is a very difficult situation for everybody. I refute and reject the picture painted by the Deputy regarding everyone's intentions and efforts.

The second point I would make in regard to——

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

It was not everyone's, it was just the Government's.

The Taoiseach

No, it is not just the Government's. The Deputy is wrong on that and he should accept he is wrong.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

If I am wrong, the Taoiseach should show me I am.

The Taoiseach

I have listened to those who represent other interests at those talks, but the assertions the Deputy made were not made by anybody else. Deputies will be aware also that the talks covered a long agenda linked to the headline issues under the framework agreed some days before. Each issue required lengthy and detailed consideration in turn and, in accordance with normal practice in these types of negotiations, there were very experienced and skilled negotiators on all sides. Issues in respect of pay were discussed after all the other issues were dealt with.

That said, social partners were aware from an early stage that the majority of the €2 billion savings was required to be found from the public service pay bill, and that a pensions levy was the most likely vehicle for securing these savings. In the immediate aftermath of the breakdown of the talks, the contention was made that it was a surprise that this issue arose and the stage at which it arose. Anybody who knows anything about the dynamics of negotiations knows that such was not the case. Obviously, an orientation in the discussion took place over the weekend. One waits to see the way ahead. It would have been a requirement of some of the negotiators to know where the Government was going on some issues in order that they could look at the issue they had in hand. To suggest, simplistically, that there were many inexperienced people who did not know what they were doing is an injustice to the negotiating skills and track record of all those people.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Nobody suggested that except the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy suggested it. I heard that it——

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

That is the interpretation.

The Taoiseach

That was suggested within hours of the breakdown. That was the picture that was painted. What was first broadcast on radio, namely, the first couple of inserts on "Morning Ireland", became the picture. That is incorrect.

With regard to the points made by Deputy Gilmore, there are instances where the pay agreement is being honoured, or has been paid. As Deputies know, there are inability-to-pay clauses and there has been a serious deterioration since those negotiations were completed. The assumptions upon which they were made have changed. All that has happened because of the unprecedented situation which this and every other country faces. The context is the deepening economic recession which is enveloping, not only the advanced economies of the world, but all parts. The question of reconvening talks is a matter, therefore, that would require the agreement of all sides. The current position of the trade union movement is that it has an agreement and that those who are in a position to pay should pay and those who have a problem should proceed, in the normal way, to use the terms of the agreement to address issues and to try to deal with these matters at enterprise levels. That is the position. It is not a question of the agreement being disregarded in that respect. Obviously, there are difficulties, stresses and strains that are reflected in the new economic reality with which we contend.