Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Nov 2010

Vol. 721 No. 2

Ceisteanna — Questions

Benchmarking Pay Awards

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the total cost which has accrued to his Department in respect of the payment of the benchmarking pay awards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30245/10]

There were two reports from the public service benchmarking body. The increases recommended in the first report of the body in June 2002 were implemented in my Department as follows: 25% of the recommended increase was paid in June 2003, with effect from 1 December 2001, and the total cost to December 2003 was approximately €405,000; 50% of the recommended increase was paid from 1 January 2004, at an approximate cost of €491,000 for that year; and the final 25% of the recommended increase was paid from 1 June 2005 at an approximate cost of €150,000 for that year. The full-year cost of the increases in 2006 was approximately €800,000.

The second report of the public service benchmarking body in December 2007 recommended an increase of 1.1% for the grade of principal officer. No other increase was recommended in respect of general Civil Service grades. No payment has been made to date by my Department in regard to this recommendation.

In respect of the Department of the Taoiseach and generally, does the Taoiseach think it satisfactory that pay awards were given without efficiencies being made contingent upon them?

All the payments made were based on various efficiencies and improvements.

Does he have a list of the efficiencies that resulted in his own Department from the payment of the awards recommended in the 2002 and 2007 reports? Can he give instances of increased efficiencies as a result of the payment of benchmarking awards in his Department?

I do not have that information before me but I make the general point that industrial peace continued throughout that period. Certain payments were made where the bases for them were adhered to and where they were not adhered to, the payments were not made. The full year cost of benchmarking was in the region of €1.2 billion. Deputy Kenny will be aware that the changes we introduced last year, which are being implemented on the basis of the Croke Park agreement, will have a full year effect of €1.8 billion.

The Taoiseach does not have the information before him because there is none. As Minister for Finance and in his current position, the Taoiseach presided over huge levels of waste and cost inflation in public spending and a failed value for money strategy without even the smallest of reforms. The discussion that has been ongoing in the public domain over the past several weeks about bank time and the cashing of pay checks, which are paid electronically, should have taken place in 2002 and 2005. Was that issue raised in the context of the benchmarking awards paid to the civil servants in his Department?

I do not have that information before me but I can get it for the Deputy.

Has he commenced a review of the traditional privilege days at Christmas and Easter? Is that issue being considered as another area of reform?

These are issues which I can answer if specific questions are tabled. I was asked to give a specific reply on the cost of the first and second benchmarking awards in my Department. If the Deputy is suggesting that benchmarking was provided on the basis of no change, he is not correct. The Revenue on-line service was a result of the benchmarking process, as was the question of stability and change in the education curriculum. One could set out a range of reforms and improvements which resulted from benchmarking. Where a delay occurred in implementing agreed changes, payments were delayed until the changes were delivered.

I agree with the Taoiseach that changes were introduced in some areas. Revenue is one such example and that is both significant and welcome. He referred to the Department of Education and Skills. Last week, we saw evidence that €300 million set aside for building schools was not being spent by that Department. What sort of benchmarking progress was made in that instance? Now we hear the money will be spent before the end of the year. What efficiencies are being made on distributing moneys voted for capital works? Thousands of small contractors are out of business despite being willing and able to tender at prices which are much lower than was previously the case.

Deputy, this question relates to the Department of the Taoiseach.

It relates to benchmarking. Surely the process or system in the Department of Education and Skills could have been streamlined in the last eight years to allow money voted through this House for capital works that are necessary for thousands of school places, and for children and their teachers, to be implemented. We should not be hanging on, halfway through November, because €300 million has yet to be spent by the Department of Education and Skills and may have to be sent back, except for the bit that is retained.

The Deputy needs to inform himself of the facts. A great deal of the capital spend in the education sector takes place at the back end of the year, when payments are made. The significant ICT moneys that are now being dispensed also come out of that capital spend. Multi-annual capital budgeting came into vogue under this Administration. When the Deputy was last in office, the problem was that schools did not know what allocations they would get from one year to the next. That is probably one of the reasons so little got done. We are seeing excellent value for money in the education sector. Our carry-over facility is enabling us to deal with tendering prices on a multi-annual basis. These are good examples of value for money, which was mentioned by the Deputy. Money is being spent in a planned way as projects which have been approved for construction to begin are being completed. The devolved grants scheme, which was introduced under this Administration, and the summer works scheme——

They are good schemes.

——have given small builders huge opportunities that did not exist before.

I accept that.

Hundreds of schools have benefited from the schemes, which help small builders to obtain contracts for public works, such as necessary improvements in schools throughout the country.

The Taoiseach made reference to the two benchmarking reports, the first of which was paid in full. He said that the second report, which was produced in 2007, has not been paid. Do I take it that the 2007 agreement has been set aside, particularly in light of the contents of the Croke Park agreement, which commits to no further pay increases before 2014? When the arrangement whereby public servants are given half an hour off to cash their cheques was raised and became an issue recently, I was one of those who were surprised that it had not been weeded out of the system in return for earlier benchmarking payments. Can I ask why that was not done? Why was the benchmarking agreement not availed of to bring that practice to an end? When we asked questions about the Croke Park agreement in mid-October, the Taoiseach told the House that action plans had been submitted. Can he give the House specific details of the proposals in the action plan that has been submitted by the Department of the Taoiseach?

I do not want to comment on the position of any individual union on the specific matter raised by the Deputy. It is important to note that the public service unions have agreed to the terms of the Croke Park agreement. Moreover, they have been looking for details of the management's proposals for achieving savings and efficiencies in the cost of delivering public services. Officials at management level within the Civil Service have given details of the proposals they intend to pursue to secure efficiencies and greater productivity to the Civil Service unions for consultation in advance of submission to the implementation body. The unions have also agreed to a fast-track binding mechanism for the resolution of disputes. I anticipate that Civil Service management will avail of those mechanisms where necessary.

I was also asked about the various sectoral action plans, with specific reference to the savings to be achieved under the Department of the Taoiseach's action plan under the Croke Park agreement. The Department employs 191 whole-time equivalents. It has reduced its overall staff numbers by 10% since January 2008. We will continue to reduce staff numbers by a further 2% below the employment control framework set by the Department of Finance, while maintaining the quality of the services we provide. Some 35 staff members have been redeployed to other Departments since January 2008. We will continue to actively facilitate the reallocation of staff to those areas of greatest need, in accordance with the redeployment arrangements set out in the agreement. The Department has already discontinued five of the six bodies under its direct control. The remaining body, the National Economic and Social Development Office, will continue to be subject to positive transformation. Vacancies at assistant secretary level will continue to be filled by open competition and consideration will be given to open competition for posts at other grades, where appropriate, for example, where specialist skills or qualifications are required. Merit-based competitions are used for the majority of promotions and they will be the norm for all future promotions. Staffing levels and structures will be reviewed in consultation with staff. The Department operates extensive opening hours, a standard 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., with 24-hour opening, as required, and these will be maintained in the context of that review. Between 2007 and 2010, the total budget was reduced by 18.2%, including a reduction of 8.3% in the pay budget. In the period 2011 to 2014, we will achieve further reductions of 14.4% in the total budget, including 11.4% in 2011, and 4.2% in the pay budget, including 1.2% in 2011.

What is the status of the 2007 benchmarking report? The Taoiseach did not refer to this in his reply. Has the report been stood down?

It only related to increases of 1.1% for the principal officer grade. Other Civil Service grades were not affected by it and, therefore, that is the only aspect of it that is relevant. It is the only substantive part of the report. The Croke Park Agreement, from the date of its signing up to 2014, has set out a review mechanism for spring 2011 and an annual review thereafter and, in respect of any significant savings that will be provided, consideration can be given in the context of those reviews to salaries of less than €35,000.

The programme for Government has a very explicit commitment to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and second level schools. Is the Taoiseach in a position to give us confirmation and affirmation that there will be no measures in the budget on 7 December that will in any way dilute that commitment or see an expansion of the pupil-teacher ratio? It is quite particular. The programme states: "...No further increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and second level schools in the lifetime of this Government." I ask the Taoiseach to rule out any measure in the budget that would increase the ratio. The programme also states that the standard capitation grant will be maintained. Can the Taoiseach indicate——

The Deputy is straying somewhat from the substance of the question.

I would not have thought so. Surely, this is within the bounds of what I have tabled in Questions Nos. 5 and 6.

We are on Question No. 1.

I beg the Ceann Comhairle's pardon. I apologise to the Taoiseach. I believed we were dealing with the programme for Government —mea culpa.

The Deputy was fast out the traps.

I will put his question for him.

Programme for Government

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

2 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. [30246/10]

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if it is intended to publish the promised progress report on the implementation of an Agreed Programme for Government and the renewed programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32317/10]

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the implementation to date of the Agreed Programme for Government and the renewed programme for Government, with particular reference to those areas for which his Department has direct responsibility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32318/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the progress made in the implementation of the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32335/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the arrangements that are in place, if any, for the monitoring of the implementation of the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32336/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive together.

The first anniversary of the renewed programme for Government occurred on 10 October 2010. The programme was agreed last year in the light of significantly changed economic circumstances which have affected everyone. The core focus of the renewed programme is to stimulate sustainable economic recovery and job creation. It sets out the agreed areas of focus for each individual Minister whose duty it is to ensure that those commitments within their particular portfolios are implemented.

As I have stated on many occasions, we all have to adapt to changed economic circumstances. The international environment, while showing signs of recovery, is still fragile. Our focus is to stabilise our finances. Furthermore, we need to increase the competitiveness of the economy such that when the economic recovery takes place, we are best positioned to take advantage of that recovery. The renewed programme for Government takes account of these realities and sets out mechanisms that will allow us to achieve these objectives. The implementation of the renewed programme is an ongoing process which takes account of developing circumstances including the availability of resources. A progress report detailing the programme's implementation will be prepared shortly.

The Electoral (Amendment) Bill proposes to put in place legal mechanisms to restrict donations to political parties. The representative of the Green Party seated beside the Taoiseach said that it was promised that this Bill would be brought before the House this session. I note from the legislative agenda that the heads of the Bill have yet to be approved by the Government. Is it expected that the heads of such a Bill will be approved by the Government in this session?

Yes, we hope that will be the case but what is being worked upon at the moment is a priority.

In respect of the Department of Education and Science, a matter to which Deputy Ó Caoláin referred and to which he may return, the Green Party stated that the junior partners in the coalition were determined to maintain support for primary education and to prevent cuts in school capitation. In its revised programme for Government, agreed just over a year ago, the Government committed itself to no further increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and second level schools for the lifetime of the Government. It also stated that it would provide 500 teaching posts between primary and second level schools over the next three years, 200 to be provided immediately and 150 to be provided in each of the following years. Does this commitment still stand?

Can we take it that for the lifetime of this Government there will no further increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and second level schools? Does the commitment in the programme for Government to provide 500 teaching posts between primary and second level schools over the next three years still stand? How many of the 200 teachers to be provided immediately have been appointed, have the 150 teachers to be provided for this year been appointed and will the teachers to be provided for the remaining two years of the lifetime of the Government be appointed?

The Deputy will be aware that I cannot anticipate outcomes of discussions that are ongoing at Cabinet other than to say that we are doing all we can to ensure that we seek to address the issues we have set out in the programme. All our programme commitments are on the basis of maintaining financial stability — that must be the overriding priority. As the Deputy will be aware, I am not in a position, nor should anyone be in a position, during the course of Cabinet discussions to anticipate the outcome of all these areas. The Deputy will be aware that they are all being looked at to see in what way we can deal with the adjustments that must be considered not only for 2011 but for beyond then. We are doing all we can to address these issues in that context.

Can I take it from what the Taoiseach has said that the solemn commitment in the programme for Government is no longer valid? If the Taoiseach says that at the Cabinet table there will be a stress on the priorities that were to be made here in the context of the programme for Government, there were two clear facts in that respect. One was that there was to be no further increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and second level schools for the lifetime of this Government. It appears that commitment is now being abandoned, if I am to go by the Taoiseach's comment. Second, 500 teaching were to be provided, 200 immediately and a further 150 for each of the years of the lifetime of the Government. This means that the Green Party has now capitulated on breaking what was a solemn Government commitment. It means that in the light of current circumstances, to which the people of the country have been led by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, the programme for Government is no longer valid in the context of the discussions now taking place in preparation for next year, or am I to assume that is incorrect and that the Taoiseach can tell me that whatever else happens, these two commitments are to be honoured?

I hear Members opposite talk about education being an investment in the future, which is true. I also hear them talk about how we will do this fairly for everybody and that all Departments are being looked at. A solemn commitment was given that there would be no increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in primary or second level schools and that 500 teaching positions would be provided, 200 immediately and 150 for each of the following years. If that is a front line service, will we see it protected?

The Deputy asked if he can assume that what I have been saying is incorrect. He can take it that most of the time what he says is incorrect. That is usually the problem when one tries to turn assertion into fact. It is never a good idea.

The Taoiseach's own facts have always stood up about turning the corner——

Absolutely, Deputy.

——-and how there would be walls of cash.

Turning the corner into the ditch.

Deputies, one speaker at a time.

Did Deputy Kenny read his party's policy document before he went on the radio last Sunday?

The only time the country will turn a corner is when the Taoiseach turns into Áras an Uachtaráin.

Did he leave the costings at home or what? On the commitment given last year to have another 200 posts, we ensured this was done. In the context of budgets, when one is in a Government one is not in a position to discuss budgets or Estimates until everything is signed off. It is not correct for the Deputy to make the sort of points he is making or to make any assumptions in that regard.

It is in the programme for Government.

I know what is in the programme for Government and I can quote the Deputy's programme for Government. Every programme for Government, if the Deputy were to read them——

I read the programme for Government and it states there will be no further increases in the pupil-teacher ratio.

The Deputy went on about this for about ten minutes.

Unlike the Taoiseach, I read the Lisbon treaty.

The difference is that I negotiated the treaty and probably saw ten drafts of it before the Deputy even heard of it.

Discussions are ongoing in relation to all of these matters to try to secure an outcome that meets with the requirements of the situation. All programmes for Government, including those signed by the Deputy's former leader — the Deputy was a member of a Government himself — have a requirement for financial stability. One cannot do things regardless of what are the economic circumstances. Obviously, we are doing all we can to ensure we can discuss these matters and come to an outcome that meets the requirements of the situation in the best way we possibly can. That is where things are at and the Deputy's assertions to the contrary and his suggestions of abandonment and so forth are incorrect.

In that case, the matter is only under discussion.

The Taoiseach states that the programme for Government is subject to the economic situation. I will raise two matters that could not be argued to be subject to the economic situation. The first is the commitment in the programme for Government to establish an independent electoral commission which would address issues such as the Dáil electoral system, numbers of Deputies and so on. What has happened to this commitment and when are we likely to see the commission established?

I was not clear about the reply the Taoiseach gave Deputy Kenny in respect of the commitment in the programme for Government to introduce legislation to ban corporate donations to political parties. Will the Taoiseach be more specific about when the House will see this legislation? I understand there was a commitment that in line with the legislation, a political fund would be established to which businesses would contribute generally and which would be disbursed on a proportionate basis among political parties. What has happened to this commitment? Will a political fund be established before the general election?

On the electoral commission, the Deputy's question should be directed at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I am sure an update on the progress being made on the matter can be provided. I cannot deal with each individual commitment in front of me as I am dealing with matters generally.

The legislation to which the Deputy refers is at an advanced stage of preparation. Issues are being considered in respect of the matter which will be dealt with when it comes to Government. I understand it should be with us shortly but I cannot anticipate the outcome of that decision.

I will ask the Taoiseach about some other matters in the programme for Government. On the commitment that the Government will not proceed with any new scheme of student contribution for third level education, does this mean tuition fees will not be re-introduced? How does this commitment square with the proposed increase in the student registration fee?

On the commitment that 127,000 jobs will be created in the green and smart economies over the next decade, how many of these jobs have been created to date?

When the carbon tax was introduced last year the Government gave a commitment that a special fuel allowance would be introduced to provide for low income families who are affected by the introduction of the carbon levy. I understand this was to have been introduced at the time the levy took effect, which was on 1 May 2010.

While it was not then introduced, its introduction was promised in October. When will this happen?

On the green economy issue, approximately 250 companies in Ireland now export environmental products and services, as well as serving the home market. More than 6,000 jobs have been created in that area and I understand there has been a 6% increase in employment in that sector this year alone. It is a growing area that will grow further. The Government continues to work on the basis of the excellent green enterprise development group report that provided it with a series of recommendations on which to work to bring this about. To what did the first question asked by the Deputy relate?

It related to student tuition fees.

The Deputy will be aware that discussions are ongoing on these matters and as he is well aware, I cannot discuss these issues. The Government understands, notes and is aware of the commitments in the programme for Government but until final decisions are made in budgetary terms, I cannot give any indication in that regard. I should also point out that more than 5,000 jobs have been created in the retrofit industry in addition to the figures I already have outlined. These are new jobs that are coming through in this sector as a result of policies being pursued by the Government. On the question of dealing with fuel poverty, this also is a budgetary matter that will be dealt with in that context.

Deputy Kenny has stolen my lines. On the issue I raised mistakenly before this group of questions was reached, the programme for Government is clear in its commitment to avoid any increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in either primary or second level schools and uses the phrase, "for the lifetime of this Government". I again suggest to the Taoiseach that his unwillingness to affirm the commitment of his party and his colleagues in power to this commitment places the entire programme in question. This is a highly important and strong statement of intent and it deserves a better response than the one secured. I also make this point with regard to the standard capitation grant.

My final point on education is that the programme for Government states "Those with special needs will be safeguarded". Will the Taoiseach rule out any further reductions in special needs assistance and other supports to keep the commitment to, as the programme states, "continue to develop therapy services for children with special needs attending mainstream schools"? These are the areas about which Members are being asked on a continuous basis by people in the education sector. There are real concerns and worries in this regard that should be set aside by a clear and unequivocal answer from the Taoiseach in this Chamber this afternoon.

As for the health commitments in the programme for Government, it states that under equity of access, the new consultants' contract——

Deputy, to whom is this question directed?

It is a question to the Taoiseach. It states that the delivery of the new consultants' contract would help to ensure equity of access. I recently raised with the Taoiseach the issue whereby it was necessary for some 296 consultants in the public hospital system to be written to by the clinical directors and the hospital managers in their respective locations with regard to their breaches of the contract regarding their responsibilities to the public and the public health system. Does the Taoiseach not accept this is a huge number of consultants who are in breach of that contract and that clearly, the commitment of the Government in the programme to equity of access cannot be realised when there is such a high incidence of a failure to uphold and to live up to the commitments given? This is a very serious matter and I ask the Taoiseach what further steps he proposes to take to ensure that consultants who have signed up to these contracts live up to the letter of same.

Going back to previous points, the economic basis for every programme for Government is set out in the programme itself. It is important to remind Deputies what that is. The review is based on the plan to correct the public finances, which the Government set out in the supplementary budget in April 2009. That budget outlined the path to reduce the deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of 2013. That was subsequently extended to 2014. During the course of this financial year we have seen reductions in growth forecasts internationally and these must be reflected in our domestic situation. We must also reflect the impact of the Greek crisis on government borrowings for all governments, and certainly for ours. That is another matter that has to be taken into account.

The economic basis of the programme is one to which all the main parties have subscribed. If we are to reach the programme's target, even allowing for the extension of a further year, we must make certain decisions to bring our budgets back into line. What I am hearing from some Deputies today is that they want commitments on various aspects, regardless of the course of discussions which are ongoing. That is not something I should do or can do responsibly. No responsible Government, at this stage of its proceedings, can make that sort of arrangement.

All these matters are under consideration. When one considers that health, education and social welfare account for 70% of the total day-to-day spend one must take into account what adjustments will have to be made to deal with that. I make that general point. One cannot make any assumption based on it, other than that the discussions are ongoing.

Parties such as Fine Gael and Labour adhere to the target of reducing the deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014. They cannot ask me to implement a programme in full if the economic basis of the programme has been changing, and it has been changing. That is acknowledged by everyone who wants to live in the real world. The luxury of sitting high on the Opposition benches is fine for Deputy Ó Caoláin. In the meantime, no responsible Government can fail to take cognisance of the present economic situation.

I do not accept the argument that the reduction of the deficit to 3% by 2014 is a realistic prospect. Not only do I reject the timeframe; I reject the methodology. What has any of that to do with the fact that we have almost 300 consultants that we know of, and heaven knows how many more, who are not adhering to the terms of their contracts within the public health system? That cannot be left to clinical directors and hospital managers.

That question would be more appropriately put to the Minister for Health and Children.

She will not answer it.

Given the Government's commitment in the programme for Government to equity of access, I am asking the Taoiseach what further steps the Government will take to have this matter addressed.

Another element in the programme for Government referred to by Deputy Gilmore was the independent electoral commission. Among the tasks outlined in the programme for Government is to make recommendations on the feasibility of extending the franchise in presidential elections to the Irish abroad. I raised this issue with the Taoiseach on 13 October and he said there was no demand for it and that the case for it had not been put. However, it is in the programme for Government. The case has certainly been put. Last Thursday evening in London, I attended and addressed a meeting of representatives of a variety of social, cultural and other organisations from across the Irish community in London. There is a very strong demand for this issue to be addressed.

This is not a party politically divisive proposition. The extension of voting rights in presidential elections to the diaspora is something to which we can all sign up. Is it not within the Government's gift——

Perhaps the Deputy will pursue that with the line Minister.

With respect, I am finishing the question. Is it not within the Government's gift, in line with the commitment in the programme for Government, to bring that about in advance of next year's presidential election?

The commitment relates to the establishment of that commission to consider that issue. That will be part of its remit when it completes its consideration. When that work is completed, it can be considered at that time.

Leaving that aside, I am glad the Deputy met people from the diaspora in London. They have praised the Government's provision for the diaspora, particularly in the United Kingdom in recent years. A very strong commitment was made by the Government in this area. The diaspora has been very happy with what the Government has been able to do, which has far exceeded anything that has been done before.

With regard to the Deputy's point on consultants, at the heart of the principle of accountability is the fact that if issues arise, management can bring people to task and there is a mechanism by which the issues can be reviewed and remedied. That is precisely what is at play here. The change in the consultant contract does improve access in the health service — there is no question or doubt about it — and it will continue to do so. Where an issue arises in respect of which one is answerable to management, there is a process in place. It should not be a criticism of the system that this is the case because management is taking up its responsibilities in those areas. That is what accountability is about. It is not that everything is perfect. However, if circumstances are not as they should be or require investigation, there is a process in place to address them.

The Deputy does not accept that the deficit should be reduced to 3% by the end of 2014, nor does he accept the timetable or methodology. In this case, the logic of his position is simple in that he must explain to the people how he would fund the State beyond July of next year. If he does not have an answer in this regard, his policy means something other than what is suggested.

As the Deputy is aware, there is currently a gap of 35% between what we are spending and what we are earning. Next August, it will be the Sinn Féin policy, presumably, to cut entitlements by that amount. If fact, it will have to double the cut because we will be six months into the year at that stage. It is very easy to say one does not agree with this, that or the other, but one must consider the consequences of doing so.

The time is nearly up.

I would like to be as short in my reply as the Deputy is in his questions.

The fact of the matter is that if one does not take a responsible approach, as one is entitled to do, and one does not believe the aforesaid adjustments must be made, one must explain how the State will be funded beyond next July. If one cannot explain it, instead of spending €50 billion with €31 billion coming in, one will spend €31 billion next year with €31 billion coming in. If this were one's approach, one would then have to explain to the people why one must cut services, entitlements and everything else.

I ask Deputy Ó Caoláin to be very brief because I must allow Deputy Reilly to contribute.

I will respond very briefly because the Taoiseach's remarks warrant a response. In the first instance, with regard to the London event——

We are not going to have a debate. This is Question Time.

Will the Ceann Comhairle please allow me to respond to what the Taoiseach said? I am indicating to him, in regard to the wish of a growing number of people in the diaspora to participate in the presidential election, that this wish is not a reflection on the Government, Opposition or anyone else. I have already indicated it was not party-political, yet the Taoiseach responded as if the Government were under attack. That is nonsense and filler for his reply.

With regard to the Taoiseach's approach to 2014, Sinn Féin has spelt out its policy.

The Deputy should conclude with a question.

It seems that, as with the Lisbon treaty, the Taoiseach has not read our pre-budget submission, although it is not only the first submission to be issued but also the only one. It outlines the alternative that exists to what the Taoiseach is proposing to do.

To fund the State.

Not only have we laid it out——

The Deputy does not have an answer to my question; that is his problem. His words are bluster.

I beg the Taoiseach's pardon.

He has no answer to the question as to how he would fund the State beyond July.

That is the Taoiseach's choice. We have indicated very——

We cannot have a debate at Question Time. There is no provision for it.

If the Taoiseach does not take the time to read and study the alternatives——

The Deputy will have to find another way to pursue this matter.

——to the whole mess he has led us into.

Let me refer to the Taoiseach's own document lest he believe I did not read the programme for Government, one paragraph of which refers to supporting best outcomes and further support for primary and preventive care. The latter would mean that the money would follow the patient. I welcome the fact that the Government is taking on board some of Fine Gael's FairCare policy.

Which one is that?

In view of the fact that he presides over a Government which informed the country that we would make money from the banking crisis and which then stated that said crisis would cost €4.5 billion — whereas the bill to date is €50 billion — the Taoiseach is in no place to ask questions with regard to costings. The costings are there.

What we are suggesting can be done for less than the 11.8% the Minister for Health and Children has indicated is being spent on health services.

A question please.

What is the Taoiseach's view with regard to the case of the member of the Government whose GP referred them for a scan and who was given a date for the procedure which is 13 months hence? That shows the level of equity within the health service for someone who attends as a public patient.

Barr
Roinn