Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with the political parties in Northern Ireland since 10 July 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30235/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Northern Ireland Issues.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with the British Government on Northern Ireland since 10 July 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30236/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30602/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30603/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30604/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30605/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent contacts with the British Prime Minister regarding the ongoing implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrew’s Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31176/09]
Brian Hayes
Ceist:8 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the upcoming meeting of the British-Irish Council. [35414/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the MacEntee inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35237/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 11 October 2009 with the US Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton. [36633/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:11 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 11 October 2009 with the US Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36656/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:12 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his priorities for the forthcoming meeting of the British-Irish Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36765/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive, together.
Together with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, I met with Gerry Adams, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and representatives from Sinn Féin on 8 July last. I then met with Mark Durkan, Minister Margaret Ritchie and their SDLP colleagues on 9 July. At these meetings we discussed recent developments and in particular progress on the devolution of policing and justice and the marching season as well as the positive outcome of the NSMC plenary meeting which took place on 6 July. Following that meeting I had discussions with First Minister, Peter Robinson, over lunch. I have already replied to questions in this House on the NSMC plenary.
I had a number of telephone conversations with Prime Minister Brown in recent days and weeks in the context of the ongoing situation on the devolution of policing and justice. The Minister, Deputy Martin, also met with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Shaun Woodward, on 7 October to discuss the issue and they met again this week.
Our officials are keeping in regular contact with the Northern Ireland parties, the Northern Ireland Office and No. 10 Downing Street. There was a further meeting between First Minister Robinson, Deputy First Minister McGuinness and Prime Minister Brown last night in Downing Street.
I am heartened by the successful outcome to those discussions. I understand that a financial package to support devolution of policing and justice was agreed and will be published later today. The First and Deputy First Ministers have indicated that they will consult with their colleagues and other parties on the package, as well as having further talks between themselves to resolve any remaining issues.
At my meeting with US Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton, in Farmleigh on 11 October our discussions focused on current developments in Northern Ireland and the importance of supporting the Northern Ireland parties in moving forward on the devolution of policing and justice. We both welcomed the progress made in discussions between Prime Minister Brown and the First and Deputy First Ministers in recent weeks. There was also a shared emphasis on the need to promote economic development in Northern Ireland, as well as building up the all-island economy as a key element of economic recovery. I thanked Secretary of State Clinton for her steadfast personal attention to the issue of Northern Ireland and her continued friendship for Ireland.
I met with Sir Hugh Orde in Government Buildings on 27 July. He formally completed his term as Chief Constable of the PSNI on 31 August. I thanked Sir Hugh for the contribution he made to policing in Northern Ireland and wished him well in his new role as president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I take this opportunity to wish his successor, Matt Baggott, well in his new role.
On 15 October I addressed the North-South Consultative Conference in Farmleigh. The conference was attended by the social partners, North and South, along with other members of civil society. There was a wide-ranging discussion on the contribution that civil society can make to supporting the process.
The next meeting of the British-Irish Council will take place on 13 November in Jersey. At the meeting we will focus discussion on the current global economic crisis as well as the theme of minority languages. The next plenary meeting of the NSMC will take place on 14 December in Northern Ireland and I expect we will have further discussions on the economy at that meeting. In total, we have had four plenary meetings of the NSMC since May 2007 and another 43 ministerial meetings over the same period.
I pay tribute to the important role that Senator Ted Kennedy played over many years in the peace process and more generally to the welfare of this island. His passing is a great loss for Ireland and the United States.
The total amount spent on the MacEntee commission of investigation, which completed its work in March 2007, was €2,632,702. All costs relating to the commission of investigation have been discharged.
This is the first opportunity in which we have had questions on Northern Ireland since the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. I join with the Taoiseach in paying tribute to the enormous contribution he made over many decades to bringing about peace in Northern Ireland. I also pay tribute to Mark Durkan who since we last had questions in the House on Northern Ireland has announced his intention to resign as leader of the SDLP. I pay tribute to the work he has done both in that capacity and in his earlier work with the SDLP.
Specifically on the devolution of policing and justice matters, can the Taoiseach give the House any more information than he outlined in his opening reply? He mentioned he has been having discussions with Prime Minister Brown. I understand that Prime Minister Brown is to announce a financial package in the near future. There has been some speculation that he would do so today. Does the Taoiseach have any information in regard to that and was he involved in any way in discussions on the preparation of that package?
As I said in my reply there have been a number of meetings involving both Governments and the Northern Ireland parties in recent weeks. The main focus of those talks has been the financial package to support the Northern Ireland Executive once devolution of policing and justices has taken place. The Prime Minister has taken a close personal interest in those discussions and I am grateful to him for those efforts, which I believe have resulted in agreement on an excellent financial package which will be published later today. I spoke to him by telephone this morning.
For their part, the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Northern Ireland parties are in ongoing discussions about issues on which they need to finalise arrangements, including the appointment of a justice Minister and how the new Department and Minister will fit into the existing Executive system in the North. Legislation to facilitate that has been passed at Westminster and the necessary Northern Ireland legislation is currently working its way through the Assembly and its committee system.
In parallel to all of that the First Minister has indicated that he wants to maximise what he has described as community confidence. The publication later today of the financial package is a major step forward in that regard. There are a few more steps to be taken before devolution finally takes place but I remain optimistic that it will proceed in the near future.
I welcome the Taoiseach's optimism that the devolution of policing and justice functions will take place in the near future. Concern has been expressed by the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about the delay in publishing a promised consultation document on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. That was promised in both the Good Friday Agreement and in the St. Andrew's Agreement. Has the Taoiseach raised that issue with the British Government?
In that context I also wish to ask him about the fears that have been expressed recently by the president of the Irish Human Rights Commission, Maurice Manning, who claims that commission will not be able to continue to exist if its funding is cut further in the budget. Since the establishment of that body also arose from the Good Friday Agreement, can the Taoiseach offer any hope to it that funding cuts will not threaten its continued existence?
Regarding the bill of rights for Northern Ireland, I reiterate the commitment of the Government to ensure the full and effective implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrew's Agreement. In that context we attach importance to a specific bill of rights for Northern Ireland as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. The Government has consistently communicated that position in contacts with the current British Administration and with the Conservative Party Front Bench.
The work of the forum on a bill of rights and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has made a significant and important contribution to the bill of rights process. I look forward to the consultation document currently being prepared by the Northern Ireland Office bringing us closer to the enactment of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. I would like to see that brought into the public domain as soon as possible.
Regarding other issues in our own jurisdiction, no body — however important or august — can regard itself as immune from an exercise in expenditure savings that is necessary for the future development of the country.
I welcome the comment by the INLA some weeks ago that it has confirmed an end to its campaign of violence in Northern Ireland and that shortly it expects to begin decommissioning whatever arms it has. That is to be welcomed. There is an increasing threat, however, from dissident forces both North and South of the Border. I understand that a crime seminar organised on Monday stated that dissident Republicans posed a "severe and increasing threat". I want the Taoiseach to know that in so far as the Government takes action on this matter it will have the full support of this side of the House in supporting the forces of law and order to deal with any of those dissident threats.
My colleague, Deputy Flanagan, our spokesman on justice, recently highlighted efforts that have been made by dissidents to recruit young people in the Republic. First, does the Taoiseach have a view on the extent of the threat posed by dissident Republicans in view of the seminar on Monday at which it was stated that they posed a severe and increasing threat? Second, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who is sitting beside the Taoiseach, recently met his counterpart in Northern Ireland, Paul Goggins. Has the Minister reported to the Taoiseach on those discussions? Did they put in place a strategy to deal with an increasing threat from dissidents? Did any discussion take place about the huge increase in cross-Border criminality, mostly in the area of smuggling petrol, diesel and cigarettes?
To respond to the last point made by the Deputy regarding the activities of our Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who has joined me here this morning, the seminar last Monday, at which he met Mr. Goggins, was precisely about the issue of cross-Border criminality — smuggling, working with Customs, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Assets Recovery Agency etc., North and South. The close co-operation between the Garda, the PSNI and other agencies of the State is an ongoing priority for the Garda Commissioner and for the Minister.
On the question of the recent INLA statement, last Sunday's announcement that the INLA campaign is over and its commitment to peaceful means is potentially important. I would encourage it to engage with the decommissioning body.
Regarding recent dissident activity, I condemn in the strongest possible terms the recent activities by dissidents, including the targeting of families of police officers and attempted bomb attacks. Those who are carrying out these acts represent nobody. Their actions are entirely destructive. Co-operation between police services North and South has never been better and they are working closely together to ensure these people are brought to justice. It is clear from recent IMC reports that dissident groups styling themselves Óglaigh na hÉireann, the Real IRA, and the Continuity IRA are criminal groups. They have failed to move on. They have no mandate from the people and their continued involvement in various types of criminal activity should leave no one in any doubt about what they are trying to do.
Police services North and South are co-operating closely in tackling cross-Border crime. The conference held on Monday last, the seventh such conference, builds on the successes of previous years and further strengthens cross-Border co-operation. The event brought together senior officers from the Garda Síochána, the PSNI, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Revenue Commissioners, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, Government Departments and immigration officers from both jurisdictions. We must tackle cross-Border crime effectively and take a united approach at both political and operational levels, sending a clear message to organised criminal gangs that there is no hiding place on either side of the Border for their illegal activity. The devolution of policing and justice will help this process further by enabling us to provide a fully integrated system of devolved government for Northern Ireland.
Last December the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission handed over its advice to the British Government on the preparation of a consultation document for a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach is aware that this is a significant part of the Good Friday Agreement. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is now concerned that the consultation document will not be published in advance of a British general election because the timeline is short. Again, according to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Conservative Party has made it clear that it proposes to replace the Human Rights Act 2000 with a United Kingdom Bill of rights and responsibilities, which would include Northern Ireland.
As the Taoiseach is aware, a Bill of rights for Northern Ireland is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement. Has he had any discussions with his counterpart, Prime Minister Brown, or has his officials discussed this issue at official level? If an election takes place in Britain and there is a change of government and if the Conservative Party wishes to introduce a new Bill to replace the Human Rights Act 2000, this would mean what is in the Good Friday Agreement would be changed. Does the Taoiseach have a concern about this? Does he have any information about whether the consultation paper will be published before a British general election? Does he consider that would be important given that he had a part in the negotiations which led to the Good Friday Agreement being concluded, of which this is an integral part?
As I said in reply to an earlier question, we reiterate our commitment to ensuring the full and effective implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements. We attach importance to the provisions of a specific Bill of rights for Northern Ireland as envisaged in the Agreement. We have consistently communicated that point and position in contacts with the current British Administration and with the Conservative Party Front Bench. There is a consultation document in preparation in respect of that aspect of the Agreement. We would like to see it published and consultation proceed, and the merits of that initiative being debated in its own context, as the Deputy said, consistent with the Agreements we have signed.
As it seems agreement has been finally reached on the devolution from London to Belfast of policing and justice powers, will the Taoiseach indicate what role the Government will play in ensuring this vital step in transforming policing in the Six Counties and on the island as a whole is carried through? Was the Government involved in the recent negotiations? How will it fulfil its role in ensuring the full implementation of this aspect of the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements?
The Taoiseach might recall that the Dáil unanimously passed the motion, which was sent to the British Parliament and called on it to release all relevant documentation regarding the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings of May 1974. We asked for this information to be assessed by an independent international authority. Given the refusal of the British Government to comply with this request of the Oireachtas, what course of action does the Taoiseach now propose to take? Does he agree this is a very serious issue and that the lack of action on the part of the British Government must be confronted? Does the Taoiseach agree also that this issue clearly shows that any process of truth recovery relating to the conflict must be anchored, not by a body nominated by the British Government, but by an independent international truth commission? In terms of such an independent international truth commission, which both Governments would authorise, will the Taoiseach support a proposal that they would authorise the UN or a similar body to establish such a truth commission?
The financial aspects of the provision of devolution of policing and justice to Northern Ireland — the financial package to support the Northern Ireland Executive once that devolution has taken place — is to be published today. I am pleased this correspondence will be published today and that people will see that a commitment has been made to ensure it happens. A few more steps will have to be taken before devolution finally takes place but I am optimistic that it will proceed in the near future. The publication of the financial package is a major step forward in this regard.
On resolutions of this House, it is a matter for this House to deal with those matters. Having forwarded a formal resolution to the Parliament, it is a matter for the Dáil to decide what further steps, if any, it can take in the context of the clear view taken by the House in those matters at the time.
Regarding the question of dealing with the past, it is important that the work done by Mr. Bradley and Lord Eames and others provides the framework in which all of society can look to see how issues of the past can be dealt with in a way that would promote healing and reconciliation in the community.
It is a cop-out for the Taoiseach to state that it is up to the Dáil to discuss these matters. As the leader of the Dáil, I presume he would have had — perhaps he can enlighten us — conversations with the British Government representatives. If the Irish Parliament passed a resolution and sent it to the British Parliament asking for action to be taken, I presume, as would all in this House who passed that resolution, that the Taoiseach would pursue it at intergovernmental level.
Has the Taoiseach or any of the representatives sought from the British Government information on the recent claim by a retired RUC Special Branch officer, George Clarke, that British agents were involved in initiating plans to blow up the Sinn Féin offices in Dublin in 1971? Should this not be pursued in the light of the failure of that Government to provide information on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, but also in the light of the fatal bombings by British agents in Dublin in 1972 and 1974? How many other plans were initiated and carried out in this jurisdiction?
Tá ceist eile agam i dtaobh Acht na Gaeilge. Tá sé thar am go mbeadh seo curtha i bhfeidhm sna Sé Contae. Ar phléigh an Taoiseach an cheist seo le Príomh-Aire na Breataine, Gordon Brown. An gcuirfidh seisean brú go gcuirfear an reachtaíocht seo i bhfeidhm gan mhoill nó cad é stádas Acht na Gaeilge sna Sé Contae faoi láthair?
Tá Acht na Gaeilge faoi chúram an Executive sa Tuaisceart, ó 2007 nuair a bunaíodh an Executive. Mar sin, is ceist í sin atá á phlé ag Aire an Roinn Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta, an Teachta Éamon Ó Cuív, lena comhghleacaí sa Tuaisceart i dtaobh cén dul ar aghaidh atá le déanamh againn ar an ábhar sin.
Regarding the specific questions about claims being made by this, that or the other person about any activity, these are matters that can be put to the line Minister and to the Garda for investigation in the event of any allegation of criminal activity. From my point of view, as Leader of the Government, my job is to see in what way I can assist the healing process of truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland in respect of all matters that have taken place during the course of the conflict, and to try to assist in that in a way that will promote public confidence on all sides of the community. That is the role that I would see myself taking in respect of that.
This Government and the previous Administration have, as I stated in my reply, devoted considerable resources to obtaining to the greatest extent we could but, unfortunately, not to the full, as much information as we could on those who died in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, one of whom came from my own home town.
Programme for Government.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:13 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when it is intended to publish the promised progress report on the implementation of An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30237/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:14 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the review of the programme for Government. [30238/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:15 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30634/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:16 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his involvement in the revision of the programme for Government; when the revised programme will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31178/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:17 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the provisions of the renewed programme for Government agreed on 9 October 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36654/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:18 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the timescale for the implementation of those aspects of the renewed programme for Government that relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36655/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 18, inclusive, together.
The revision of the programme for Government has been completed and it will serve us well in the years to come. The new programme sets out the development of the country over the remainder of the Government's term up to 2012 and is designed to act as a blueprint to meet the challenges we face. We have worked well together, as two parties in Government with others, providing good Government for the country during a period of unprecedented global economic turmoil.
The initial programme for Government agreed in the aftermath of the 2007 general election made clear that its delivery was based on an economic growth rate of 4.5%. It was negotiated prior to the worst global downturn since the 1930s. This review is about ensuring the programme for Government reflects current economic realities. Achievement of the goals set out in both documents, subject to resources, will continue to provide the political basis of Government action until we complete our term in 2012. As has been the practice in previous years, it is our intention to publish on the web in the next few weeks a progress report relating to the delivery of our initial programme for Government.
I will first deal with some of the specifics in the revision of the programme for Government, particularly in the area of education, because I want to get clarification on them. I welcome the commitment in the revised programme for Government that there will not be a reintroduction of third level tuition fees in the lifetime of the Government. Is there a commitment that the university and college registration fees will also not be increased? There has been some concern that while there is a commitment not to increase the tuition fees, the registration fees might be increased. Can the Taoiseach clarify the position on the education items in the revised programme for Government? Is it intended that they will be funded out of the education budget or will the funding be found elsewhere?
While there were many specifics in areas such as the ones I mentioned, I was surprised by an absence of specifics in other areas such as the handling of the public finances. Is there agreement, and did part of the discussions involve how the public finances will be dealt with? Is there agreement or, as part of these negotiations, was there discussion, on what adjustments are to be made in respect of the different years in the remaining expected life of the Government? What was the position, or was there any position agreed, in respect of issues such as public sector pay and social welfare payments? While we all read of the specifics there were in areas like education, it is surprising there were no specifics agreed on those areas which I would have expected the two parties in Government would need to address, particularly heading into the budgetary process.
The review of the programme for Government does not replace the budgetary process in any given financial year but the overall parameters under which the programme for Government operates remain the same as have been outlined in the budgetary statement by the Minister for Finance in overall terms in April. The overall economic realities remain the same and it is important to point out that such is the case. Every programme for Government must be subject to the availability of resources at any given time. This review highlights some of the priority areas.
On the question of any specific issue related to education, parliamentary questions may be put to the Minister, who is involved at present in bilateral budgetary discussions with the Minister for Finance. We have outlined the areas to which we intend to give priority. The Deputy will be aware of our position in regard to the teachers. The provision of sufficient funding for that purpose will be required in future budgets. While the overall education budget has yet to be fixed in terms of what is available and what is possible, we are at this point indicating a preparedness to move on some of those areas as outlined in the programme for Government. It is a question of setting out a priority without indicating the status quo in respect of every aspect of the programme.
On the issue of social welfare payments and public sector pay, the position is simple. We have a situation in this country whereby we are spending more than €55 billion and taking in only €32 billion. We have to make a serious correction during the course of the budget. As indicated in April that correction is of the order of €4 billion. One cannot reduce expenditure by that amount simply by looking at the cost of providing services. If, for illustration purposes, this was to be achieved on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis across the board one would be seeking a cut in the provision of services of 25%, which is not tenable. One must look at every area of expenditure, including the overall social welfare budget and public sector pay and pension bill, if one is to make the corrections that are necessary.
It is time that everybody in this House acknowledged that regardless of the various aspects of the corrections, this is the scale of the difficulty facing us, in terms of the public finances, that must be addressed. We are seeking to do this over a number of years as it cannot be done overnight. In this regard we are trying to stabilise what is a high deficit position this year going into next year and to do this in a way that meets the requirements of the situation, which is what is required of all of us. We would like to see a nationally supported effort in that effort. The idea, which has once again been suggested, that nothing in terms of two-thirds of expenditure in the public purse can be touched is not a realistic starting point from which to address the scale of the problems we face.
I want to come back to what was agreed in the revised programme for Government. I have read the programme, which is specific in some areas. A huge range of areas are mentioned. For example, there are to be 41 reviews of policy. The word "review" is mentioned 41 times in the 43 pages of the revised programme.
It was in the high seventies under the rainbow coalition——
It is impressive that the Government is to undertake that level of reviewing.
Repetitio est mater studiorum.
What I am trying to get an answer to, in the context of the two parties in Government having sat down together to revise the programme for Government at a time when there is a hugely important budget due and there are huge problems with the public finances, which we all acknowledge, is not what is the scale of the problem or what are the options but has the Taoiseach agreed with his partners in Government how this will be dealt with? I appreciate that agreement has not been reached on the budget, which will come later. For example, what are the target figures — I raised this yesterday with the Taoiseach — for the adjustment in the public finances? We already know, as it was published in last year's budget and announced last April that the target is €4 billion. The Minister for Finance broke down that figure in the Budget Statement in terms of how much will be savings in public expenditure, taxation and the capital programme.
The Taoiseach let slip that the Government is now thinking of addressing this on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis. Is that what has been agreed with the partners in Government? Has agreement been reached on the big items, including pay, welfare and taxation? The Government had before it two significant reports which would have informed its discussions. Did it agree on what recommendations of the report of an bord snip nua would be advanced? Did it agree on what measures of the Commission on Taxation report would be progressed? None of this is dealt with in the revised programme for Government put before the Green Party conference. It is difficult to imagine that the two parties in Government, having had discussions on revising the programme for Government, would not have agreed how these big issues are going to be dealt with. We have not, to date, heard how they are to be dealt with. I am not asking the Taoiseach for the content of the budget but whether the Government has reached agreement on the broad parameters of how these issues are going to be dealt with.
What the Deputy is asking for is the outcome of Estimates discussions which are ongoing. I explained for illustration purposes the composition of public expenditure in terms of three broad headings. I have indicated to the Deputy that it is not possible to deal with the scale of the problem we face by regarding any aspect of that expenditure as immune from consideration for cuts. I have stated this clearly. While that is not the position the Deputy is prepared to take, it is the position I am taking. Every area of expenditure will have to make a contribution towards the solution to this problem. It is not a position——
Has that been agreed with the Green Party?
That is the position of the Government. The Government has made that clear. The an bord snip nua report has been under consideration since September by way of bilateral discussions between the Department of Finance and independent Departments and discussions in this regard are ongoing. The Deputy has been previously involved in the Estimates discussions and will be aware they take time. Various options are looked at, alternatives are sought and people who have priorities or other issues to put forward can do so. Ultimately, savings have to be identified and agreed. The process is ongoing. I cannot indicate to the Deputy during the process of those discussions what will be the outcome in this regard, except to say that the Government is determined to bring forward an adjustment that meets the requirements of the situation as we see it and that avoids a situation of drift whereby we increase the level of debt, deficits and the burden of debt on the State, which will increase further taxation levels into the future.
The Government and, the Minister for Finance, has made clear that 95% of our tax revenues come from the four main heads of income tax, VAT, excise and corporation tax. That there is available to us a big range of tax revenues in current circumstances over and above what we are already receiving in view of the fragile nature of the economy is an option that would have to be carefully considered. One would have to be slow to do that in an effort to maintain jobs and competitiveness.
The suggestion has been made that there exists a range of people who can provide sufficient funds to fill the gap. Taking the example of people earning €150,000 upwards one would be required to increase the marginal rate to 67% to raise €1 billion in that area. The impact this would have on the enterprise economy and maintaining jobs would have to be taken into account. We have already seen the marginal rate raised to 52%. Considerable tax impositions have been already introduced in the two budgets introduced in October 2008 and April 2009. It has been recognised that this was the correct action to take in the short term as we sought to investigate every area of expenditure, which was the whole purpose of the exercise undertaken by the McCarthy group. The McCarthy report is now forming the basis of further political discussions.
Deputy Gilmore has stated he does not want details. What he wants to know is what is the outcome of the Estimates process, which is ongoing. I am suggesting that given the scale of the issues to be dealt with, it is not possible to leave aside any area of public expenditure, including public sector pay and pensions and welfare, and to expect that the remaining area of public expenditure will provide the correction that is needed without, in my opinion, greatly undermining the provision of public services to those who need them and saying that those who provide the services, and those in receipt of public support, are not in a position to make some contribution towards the overall effort.
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Kenny.
What is the Government's estimate of the cost of the revised programme for Government between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party as signed off recently?
I am sorry; what was the question?
I was asking the Taoiseach whether he has an estimate of the cost of the revised programme for Government agreed recently by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party.
I explained to the Deputy last week that this programme is subject — as is every programme, including those introduced when Fine Gael itself was in Government — to the overall financial parameters in which we operate. The programme sets out priorities and the areas and initiatives that need to be considered and in which progress needs to be made. However, the overall position is that we are spending €55 billion and taking in €32 billion, and no programme for Government is sustainable on the basis of that alone. Thus, we must make corrections. What will emerge from the budgetary and Estimates process are those areas of activity we are prioritising in the various Departments of State next year based on the resources that are available to us.
I estimate that the value of the tax increases will be of the order of €2.5 billion in personal taxes. To break this down, the cut in pensions relief represents €120 million; the abolition of the PRSI ceiling is €200 million; the carbon tax is €500 million; the site value of people's homes represents around €1 billion; water charges are €500 million; extra local government taxation is €100 million; and the closing down of tax reliefs will be at least €100 million, which represents a total of €2.5 billion. Would the Taoiseach agree that those figures are reasonably accurate? Was this considered by the parties when they were negotiating this deal?
I do not accept the figures given by the Deputy for the site acquisition tax and others, because there is much work to be done before we can even see what the rates will be. The Deputy also leaves out the fact that all tax expenditures are being considered in the context of the Commission on Taxation report. Many tax expenditures take place at the moment as part of our effort to achieve an enterprise economy, and these must be considered. Thus, there are expenditures on tax as well as the question of the introduction of new taxes.
I give the Government credit for maintaining a strong capital programme, which is necessary in terms of jobs. From my involvement with architects and builders dealing with school buildings, I know it is now possible to build permanent buildings for less than the cost of prefabricated buildings. The time taken to obtain planning permission and for procurement is the same, but the construction period is a little longer for permanent buildings. Given the real value and skills that are now available from contractors and builders, the extent of employment that is possible, and the fact that they are such a necessary part of our infrastructure for the future, is it the intention of the Government to consider extending the capital injection into the schools building programme? If we compare the building of 20 km of motorway with the possibility of building all those school buildings, is it a question of juggling moneys in areas in which we can achieve greater employment and real value?
Our focus with regard to the capital programme has been on completing the projects to which we are contractually committed on time and within budget. This has, I am glad to say, been the case without exception, particularly for major road works, for which we must congratulate the NRA and the contractors it has employed to do these works, the most recent of which was the Waterford bypass, which was opened this week.
The Minister for Education and Science introduced a good initiative in the area of temporary and permanent accommodation by providing block grants to local boards of management which can identify and locate local contractors at competitive prices, where the building is planned in good time prior to the September in which the school intake will require the extra provision. Much work has been undertaken at local level by the use of that initiative. There will always be, as there is in any system, the requirement for some prefabrication because of the immediacy of the problem that arises and the need to provide temporary accommodation as an interim solution. As we know, there have been many major school building projects with which we have proceeded through the years, certainly during the good times, and we have seen improvements in our school building programme for not only tens or hundreds of schools but thousands of schools.
This has been against a background of historic under-investment because of the lack of resources available to Governments through the years to achieve modernisation. Particularly in education, we can all be proud of the many advances that have been made. The provision of facilities in many of our schools has been exemplary, although problems remain in developing areas, particularly where demand rises quickly. The acquisition of sites and suitable locations for schools — and the provision of the many different school models now being promoted in our education system — has brought certain pressures. However, in overall terms, the work of successive Ministers in this area has been good. I am not saying there are no problems, but there are far fewer problems now than was the case in the past.
Looking to the future, the questions of capital appraisal and the employment involved in projects are important, and will be considered by the Minister for Finance in the context of the capital budget allocation.