Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during May 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24265/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreedom of Information.
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department since January 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29482/08]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of requests received by his Department under the Freedom of Information Act 1997 in the first eight months of 2008; if he will provide comparable figures for the same period in respect of each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29621/08]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department since September 2007 to date in 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32336/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (21 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The following table sets out the information requested by the Deputies regarding freedom of information requests received by my Department. All such requests are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003. Under those Acts, I have no role in regard to the processing of individual applications.
|
Year |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
May |
June |
July |
Aug |
Sept |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Total |
|
2002 |
20 |
12 |
14 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
10 |
8 |
7 |
13 |
15 |
18 |
146 |
|
2003 |
21 |
29 |
30 |
10 |
11 |
7 |
13 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
142 |
|
2004 |
1 |
8 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
12 |
1 |
5 |
45 |
|
2005 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
16 |
5 |
7 |
61 |
|
2006 |
9 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
54 |
|
2007 |
14 |
1 |
8 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
9 |
10 |
0 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
71 |
|
2008 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
12 |
1 |
5 |
7 |
8 |
3* |
|||
|
Total |
71 |
59 |
60 |
42 |
44 |
39 |
50 |
44 |
29 |
53* |
*To date.
The Office of the Information Commissioner received 10,704 requests in 2007, a decrease of 42%, or 7,739, on 2003. The reason given was the introduction of fees. The Information Commissioner has requested on a number of occasions that the scale and structure of fees be reviewed. The reason for this is obvious. The commissioner makes that point that among eight comparable jurisdictions Ireland is one of only two that charges for freedom of information appeals. For example, Ontario charges €16 in comparison with Ireland which charges €150 in this regard.
The Taoiseach, when Minister for Finance, dismissed a claim by the Information Commissioner, Ms O'Reilly, for a reduction in fees for freedom of information requests and appeals which led in her opinion to a culture of secrecy. Is the Taoiseach, in his new capacity, prepared to reconsider the Ombudsman's recommendations and suggestions in so far as they apply to his Department and others? Also, does he consider that when an appeal is lodged and justified the fee charged by the State should be waived?
As the Ceann Comhairle has pointed out on previous occasions, the Minister for Finance bears responsibility for the Freedom of Information Acts. I am answering in respect of the operation of the Acts in my Department. Regarding Deputy Kenny's more general question in regard to fees, there is no charge for personal information. The up-front fee is €15 and the internal review fee is €75. A review by the Information Commission costs €150, with reduced fees for persons on limited means.
The regulation allows for a refund in the case of a request being withdrawn. In response to criticisms on the introduction of fees, it is argued that any decline in the number of requests that can be attributed to such a modest fee would fully vindicate the Minister's view that a better balance needed to be struck and that fees would result in a greater appreciation of the service and more considered and responsible use of the Act. The level of fees has not been increased since introduced in July 2003. In my opinion, this rebalancing was necessary to ensure the Act is used as envisaged. The fact that fees are being charged, other than for personal information for which there is no fee, ensures that people when requesting information are judicious in the trawl and the work they ask of the service in the provision of that information.
Where a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act is disallowed and is subsequently successful following an appeal to the Information Commissioner the fees should be refunded. I have two further questions for the Taoiseach.
In 2005, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service met with the Information Commissioner to assess the impact of fees on the Freedom of Information Act. The Taoiseach will recall the report in this regard. The committee subsequently wrote to the Taoiseach, when Minister for Finance, seeking to have the matter addressed as urgently as possible and to have legislation introduced at the first available opportunity. Nothing happened in this regard during the remainder of the Taoiseach's tenure as Minister for Finance or since his successor was appointed. Will the Government consider this formal request from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for the introduction of legislation arising from its analysis with the Information Commission of the fees' impact on the Freedom of Information Act?
A number of bodies remain outside the freedom of information remit. The Information Commissioner has stated there is no reason the Central Applications Office, the Adoption Board, the State Claims Agency, the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority should remain outside the remit of the Freedom of Information Acts. The Garda Síochána is also mentioned in this regard. I recognise some of those bodies would clearly have sensitive information that could well be outside the remit of a normal request under freedom of information. Does the Taoiseach share the view of the Information Commissioner that some of those should also be included, at least in part, under the Freedom of Information Act and the kind of information which would be of use to the public, without being State-sensitive or whatever, should be included under the Act?
In truth, these are matters for the Minister for Finance unless the Taoiseach wants to be of assistance.
I am sorry.
This is the difficulty. I have information specifically relating to my Department, but the general policy issues regarding a possible extension, revision of fees or amending legislation as a result of reports from various Oireachtas committees or from the Information Commissioner, who, in her annual report, sets out her views, are a matter for Government and the Oireachtas to decide. Recommendations, by their very nature, are not mandatory.
I am not in a position to provide information on the general wider policy issue, except to make an observation. During my time as Minister for Finance, if I am not incorrect in saying so, we made some decisions to considerably broaden the number of organisations coming under the freedom of information legislation. That was a result of a review which was brought to our attention and which provided for many of them. Over time, there has been a steady extension of the bodies to which the Freedom of Information Act applies. That happened during my tenure, as I am sure it happened during the tenure of predecessors in the office since the Freedom of Information Act was enacted.
With regard to the question of appeals investigated by the Information Commissioner, in respect of my Department since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act in April 1998, a total of 23 requests, or less than 2%, have been investigated by the Information Commissioner. Of these, a decision not to release records was upheld in five, a decision to part release records was made in four cases, a decision to release records in full was made in three cases and the applications were withdrawn in ten cases. There is one case currently under investigation by the Information Commissioner.
In respect of the previous query on the fees issue, an appeal to the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial process that can require many months to complete and can entail a considerable amount of work. The cost is €75 for an internal fee and €150 for an appeal to the Information Commissioner. Those fees are a fair reflection of the nature of the appeals process and of the costs and time involved.
It is important to note that a person who appeals to the commissioner may receive a preliminary decision which gives a good indication of the likely final decision. Even at that late stage in the process, the requester can withdraw the appeal and obtain a full refund of fees. I understand that 30% of appeals made to the Office of the Information Commissioner are withdrawn in that respect.
The question of the extension of the Freedom of Information Act to public bodies is, as I stated, an ongoing process undertaken by the Department of Finance. In 2006 we saw the biggest ever extension of the Act, when it was extended to a further 137 bodies, which means there are over 520 bodies now covered by FOI compared with 67 when the Act first came into operation ten years ago. Arrangements are under way in the Department of Finance to prepare for the extension of FOI to a further group of bodies, including the Law Reform Commission, the last remaining body under the aegis of my Department to be included. I expect the Minister for Finance will have an announcement to make in this regard in due course.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach about a particular decision made by the Information Commissioner on 10 October last dealing with a Cabinet document relating to the Cabinet's consideration of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. It decided the document should be released under the Freedom of Information Act and that European access to environmental information regulations superseded our domestic laws and practices that Cabinet documents are covered by Cabinet confidentiality and not released.
In respect of that decision, has the document concerned been released to the applicant or is it the Government's intention to release the document? Is it the Government's intention to appeal the decision made by the Information Commissioner?
Unless the Taoiseach can be of assistance, this is far beyond the ambit of these questions.
I can be of some assistance. The Deputy is referring to a recent ruling by the Information Commissioner regarding environmental information that ordered a release of a record disclosing Cabinet discussions. Following consultations with the Attorney General's office, it has been decided that an appeal should be taken in that case.
The decision by the Information Commissioner that a Cabinet document should be released is highly significant. On what basis will the Government appeal the decision?
The Information Commissioner found that the directive on public access to environmental information does not contain any provisions that enable Cabinet discussion on emissions into the environment to remain confidential. In her view, the regulations that transpose the directive, as well as the provisions in the Constitution in respect of Cabinet confidentiality, conflict with the directive. In these circumstances, she considers that the directive's provisions should have direct effect.
We have been directed to release our record, which contains details of discussions at a Cabinet meeting on emissions into the environment. The appeal is being considered as a result of advice from the Attorney General. In our opinion and that of the Attorney General, this is a matter for the courts on which to make a decision, rather than a holder of a statutory office.
How many of the recommendations in the Information Commissioner's report of March 2007 have been accepted by the Government? Has it accepted any recommendations to improve the working of the freedom of information process? For example, the Taoiseach spoke about appeals and the cost of same. Has he given consideration to refunding the cost of those appeals against any public body which have been upheld by the Information Commissioner? Is the Taoiseach aware that the enforcement records of the Health and Safety Authority were removed from the scope of the Act in 2005? One of the Information Commissioner's recommendations was that this should be restored. The Taoiseach should indicate the number of measures she has commended that have been adopted by the Government, as well as commenting on the two specific issues.
I understand the Taoiseach's Department has oversight responsibility in respect of the working of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which was established at the end of last year by the former Taoiseach. A recent freedom of information request was made requesting information on international travel by members of the aforementioned committee members. While I do not know whether it was made directly to the Department of the Taoiseach, it certainly is the establishing Department of the committee. I understand that this request applied to all Members of the Dáil. In this Deputy's case, I noted the freedom of information request referred to international travel and was specific to air and sea travel. However, after 11 years as a Dáil Deputy, the only return from me as a member of that committee was in respect of travel to attend the Good Friday Agreement anniversary conference in Belfast earlier this year.
The Deputy is imparting information, rather than seeking it.
Such travel was returned as being international travel in that specific freedom of information request. The Taoiseach should examine that practice. I do not consider travel between here and Belfast to constitute international travel and I do not think the Taoiseach does either.
I will check into the last point made by the Deputy. I do not think that Tyrone playing Kerry was an international match either.
I agree fully.
It certainly was not.
The wider general policy questions raised by the Deputy are best directed to the Minister for Finance, who has oversight responsibility. I replied earlier to the Leader of the Opposition on the question of fees where a successful appeal is made to the Information Commissioner. Rather than restating my reply, an appeal to the Information Commissioner is a quasi-judicial process. I am unsure whether Deputy Ó Caoláin was in the House when I gave my reply to Deputy Kenny but it is on the record.
I am specifically interested in whether fees will be refunded where the appeal is upheld by the Information Commissioner.
My earlier response was that it is important to note that a person who appeals to the commissioner may receive a preliminary decision which gives a good indication of the likely final decision. Even at that late stage in the process, the requester can withdraw the appeal and obtain a full refund of fees. That option is used in 30% of cases as a means of getting a refund prior to receiving a final decision.
It is correct to say that there is not an explicit right to the return of fees if a matter is left with the Information Commissioner and the final appeal is successful. There is an intermediate stage when, having received the preliminary decision, one can then apply for the withdrawal of the fee before the final decision is made. The preliminary decision usually gives a good indication of the likely final decision. The preliminary decision process provides an opportunity for people to have the fees returned rather than waiting for the appeal to be formally declared successful or otherwise.
Social Partnership Agreements.
Ceisteanna (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the negotiations on the social partnership agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29456/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraEnda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29457/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraEnda Kenny
Ceist:7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent activities of the National Implementation Body; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29459/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his participation in discussions to agree a successor to the Towards 2016 agreement since Dáil Éireann rose for its summer 2008 recess; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29528/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraEamon Gilmore
Ceist:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when he next plans to meet with the social partners. [29614/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraEamon Gilmore
Ceist:10 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the future of social partnership. [29615/08]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Leo Varadkar
Ceist:11 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Taoiseach the extent to which the interests of taxpayers and consumers were taken into account in the recent pay talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30965/08]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (41 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 11, inclusive, together.
The Government and the social partners recently finalised the formal review of Towards 2016 as provided for under the agreement. This report has now been published and is available on my Department's website. Copies have also been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. Given that the terms of the pay agreement for the private sector expired from March, the review process included negotiations on a new pay round.
The agenda for the talks was broad in scope and complex in terms of the specific issues up for discussion. Grappling with this extensive and complex agenda required many hours to be set aside for negotiations. Following a lengthy talks process, in the early hours of the morning on Saturday, 2 August the social partners agreed to adjourn their discussions on a new pay agreement. Contacts at official level continued over the summer with a view to establishing whether the potential existed to conclude an agreement.
On Friday, 5 September, I held a series of discussions with the social partners during which I underlined the changed context in which the pay talks were taking place in terms of the evolving economic situation. The parties affirmed to me their commitment to engaging in further discussions aimed at establishing if an agreement on a new pay deal would be possible.
An intensive round of negotiations resumed on Monday, 8 September, within a tight deadline. Throughout this process I monitored developments closely and in the course of the final overnight session of negotiations I held a series of meetings with the parties with a view to facilitating a meeting of minds on the key issues on the agenda. As Deputies will be aware, negotiations reached a successful conclusion on the morning of Wednesday, 17 September, when an agreement was reached on a successor to the first module of Towards 2016.
The agreement provides for pay increases to be paid to workers over a period of 21 months, with pay pauses of three months and 11 months agreed for the private and public sectors, respectively. The agreement reached between the parties also covers a range of non-pay and employment law related initiatives, including those related to agency workers, employee representation and victimisation, pensions, procurement, managing change and innovation, upskilling and public sector modernisation.
There is consensus among the social partners that the pay agreement provides an important transitional framework for meeting the economic and social challenges which Ireland currently faces. Indeed, the proposals have been widely recognised as representing the best terms that could be achieved. The pay agreement also provides a welcome boost for investors and workers alike by providing certainty in pay determination, safeguarding employment and helping to preserve the industrial peace which has been a hallmark of social partnership and which has benefited our economy significantly over the last 21 years. The terms of the draft agreement are now being considered by the social partners with a view to ratification over the coming weeks.
In parallel to the pay negotiations, the Government and social partners reviewed progress under the wider economic and social provisions of Towards 2016. To inform the review, a detailed progress report was prepared on progress since the commencement of the agreement under each commitment. Each social partner pillar was also invited to make its own submission with its assessment of progress during the first phase of the agreement and these provided the basis for discussion.
Social partnership is a responsive and evolving process, an important aspect of which is ensuring wide and appropriate involvement. During the negotiations, the interests of taxpayers and consumers are represented by the Government. The Government and the social partners have agreed an assessment of progress over the first two and a half years of Towards 2016 and the economic challenges facing the country in the short and medium term. Using this shared understanding, the Government and the social partners intend to work together through the current period of economic transition and uncertainty to ensure that the vision and goals set down in Towards 2016 can still be achieved.
They have accepted that economic conditions require a re-prioritisation of public expenditure while recognising the need to seek to protect the most vulnerable. They have also identified a small number of priority issues on which they will work together as social partners over the next phase of the agreement. Social partnership has served us well in the past and, by reaching agreement at this point of economic difficulty, the process has demonstrated a capacity to contribute to managing more challenging times.
I met with representatives of ICTU last Friday. They conveyed to me their concern that the effect of the income levy announced in the budget, the overall progressive effect of which they welcomed, could be seen as being at odds with one of the important features of the draft pay agreement, namely, its focus on those on low incomes. While the Government believes that it is not unreasonable that everyone should make a contribution, however modest, in accordance with their income in these difficult times, it is prepared, in the context of the importance we attach to social partnership and to the draft agreement, to provide in the Finance Bill that the levy will not apply to incomes up to the level of the national minimum wage.
The National Implementation Body, NIB, which has been in existence since the start of 2001, continues to meet as necessary to oversee delivery of the industrial peace and stability provisions of Towards 2016. The NIB has met on a number of occasions recently to assist in the resolution of industrial disputes. Over the past six months, the NIB has considered such issues as the implementation of the 37.5 hour working week for nurses, the extension of flexi-bands in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, pensions issues at RTÉ and the introduction of an incident command system in the fire services. Meetings of the NIB also provide opportunities for informal discussions on some broader issues relating to the social partnership process and the industrial relations climate generally.
I did not welcome the introduction of what is known as the Lenihan levy but I appreciate the statement made by the Taoiseach that this will not apply to those earning up to minimum wage. What numbers are excluded as a consequence and at what level will the minimum wage be next year? As a result of the changes, how does the Government propose to make up for the savings it had budgeted for when the levy applied to those on the minimum wage and will there be changes at the upper level?
In view of the rapidly deteriorating state of the public finances, is it the view of the Taoiseach that the public sector pay increases negotiated can be paid next year?
Regarding the first question, it is out of our respect for and in view of the importance of assisting the social partnership process that the Government is indicating that it is prepared to provide that the levy will not apply to incomes up to the level of the national minimum wage. I do not have the figures in front of me but approximately 850,000 workers are outside the tax net, some 36% of the workforce. In the context of the Finance Bill, the Minister for Finance will be ensuring that revenue is in line with the contribution this would make towards the social partnership process.
Social partnership, which has been hanging by a thread, was weakened considerably to the point that ICTU stated last week that the agreement would not be passed if the Taoiseach persisted with the Lenihan levy in the form in which it was proposed. Is it not obvious that the Budget Statement has now become a discussion document? It is negotiable at all turns. On this issue, because of the fear of the collapse of social partnership, the Cabinet decided this morning that the Lenihan levy would not apply——
The Minister for Finance must be referred to as the Minister for Finance.
Sorry, Ceann Comhairle.
Deputy Kenny knows that well — he has long experience in the House.
Just slightly longer than the Ceann Comhairle.
The Cabinet decided the levy of the Minister for Finance should not apply to those below the minimum wage. Obviously, that is one issue that has been negotiated. Controversy arose from the fiasco of the withdrawal of the automatic right to medical cards for those aged over 70. That was another issue decided upon by the Government. Now it clearly sees the folly of its ways and the decision is being changed——
I do not see what this has to do with social partnership.
It has to do with social partnership.
It is another point.
The budget, as announced in this Chamber last week, is no longer the budget. It will be changed utterly and we will have the same situation with regard to class sizes——
We are talking about social partnership. There will be Leaders' Questions later.
My point about the budget is that it is now merely a discussion document.
We are not talking about the budget now.
What is the position of the Government regarding public service reform? The Minister for Finance, Deputy Lenihan, has suggested that the taxpayer might now be employed to remove from the public service persons whom the Government says should not have been employed in the first place. With regard to the Health Service Executive, Professor Drumm says there will be 1,000 persons removed from that section of the public service. What is the situation? Will it apply only to the HSE or will it apply to the public sector in general? What is the extent of borrowing required to deal with the matter and how will it be targeted? From his experience, the Taoiseach is well aware that, as in previous times, persons at the higher levels may well leave, creating a very serious problem. What is the position regarding public sector reform and regarding performance as it relates to pay? What is the story from Government in respect of a targeted redundancy scheme and how much will borrowing for that cost?
Deputy Kenny raised a number of matters. First, the Minister for Finance outlined in the Budget Statement his intention to move on public sector reform. As I said, there is a task force which will provide the implementation plan in coming weeks. This will implement and sequence the OECD report on reform of the public service and how to integrate public services in order that we can improve those services. The plan will improve opportunities for those who work in our public services to provide an integrated, co-ordinated and citizen-centred approach. It will seek to ensure that the very considerable resources provided by taxpayers are used to the best possible effect in terms of the administrative structures we devise and that there is ability to move beyond departmental and agency boundaries and to work in a co-ordinated fashion to get the best possible output for taxpayers.
Second, on the response I gave Deputy Kenny about the public service, the pay increase and how we will deal with that issue, the draft pay agreement provides for a pay pause of 11 months in the case of the public service, which is a very significant saving. The Government has decided that special provision will not be made for the cost of that increase in the Estimates for 2009. In other words, the cost must be found within the existing allocations for Departments and agencies which already reflected a 3% reduction in payroll costs for 2009 over 2008 outturn levels. The net effect is a reduction of 4%, which will require significant restructuring and productivity gains. The framework by which this will be achieved, including a comprehensive review of staffing levels and deployment of personnel, will be announced by the Minister for Finance and me in a major package of public service reform measures in coming weeks.
Regarding the budget, this contribution will ensure that social partnership continues to be a part of the operation of Government. Our commitment to social partnership is an effort on our part to ensure that we get a good outcome. Deputy Kenny described the budget as a discussion document. The budget will be implemented and the deficits in the macro-economic indicators that we set ourselves are those to which we will work during the coming year. The Fine Gael Party finance spokesman put forward an alternative budget which seeks a deficit of 5.5% without tax increases. That would require a further €4 billion in expenditure cuts in either the capital programme or in current expenditure. That is a non-discussion document.
Is the Taoiseach aware that Aer Lingus, the former national airline which the Government privatised, has effectively torn up all notions of social partnership by indicating recently that some 1,500 workers will be let go and their work outsourced through agencies? The company proposes to bring in workers at what can only be described as yellow pack pay and conditions. Does the Taoiseach agree this is an outrage? Did he note that one of the workers involved stated the measures would tear out the heart and soul of the company and that we were witnessing Irish Ferries mark two? What steps will he take to have this disgraceful situation stopped? Surely the future of the economy will not be a continual trend of long held and hard won pay and conditions for Irish workers being frittered away by people whose motive is clearly suspect.
I listened to the Taoiseach's comments on the income levy measures announced in last week's budget. He will have noted the decision in the new partnership agreement to compensate low paid workers with an extra 0.5% on their meagre wages. This further compensation measure would amount to no more than 5 cent for somebody earning as little as €10 per hour.
The Deputy is imparting information instead of seeking it.
I am seeking information on social partnership. How, in heaven's name, can the Taoiseach stand over the proposal in last week's budget to impose a 1% levy on all workers, having given to the lowest paid workers a miserly 0.5% increase which, under the terms of social partnership, will not kick in for a further 18 months? Given the Taoiseach's experience as Minister for Finance and in other portfolios, this defies understanding.
The Deputy may not engage in a monologue.
I am asking for an explanation. While the Ceann Comhairle has probably been provided with all the information, it is not available to me. I cannot understand how the Taoiseach and other Ministers, with their collective experience, could have stood over a budget proposition last week which clearly fritters away all semblance of fairness and the meagre elements——
The Deputy may not make a speech on the budget when the House is discussing questions on social partnership.
I am talking about social partnership——
If that is the case, it has escaped me.
——and the meagre measures in the agreement being frittered away by the measures announced last week during the grandstand performance we witnessed in the House.
I will ask the Taoiseach to reply.
I ask the Taoiseach to explain how this could be the case.
Allow the Taoiseach to answer, please.
I will make a few points in reply to the Deputy's comments. We live in exceptional economic circumstances. The income levy is a progressive effort to ensure those on high incomes pay proportionately. The progressive nature of the levy, which applies to gross income, would not have been possible to achieve if one had used the tax rates, given the availability of shelters and allowances.
The Deputy is correct that an additional 0.5%, to be paid in the third phase, was negotiated by the unions in respect of low and modest pay. It is important to point out that this differential remains. On the basis that a 1% levy will apply to people on low pay and a 2% levy will apply to those earning more than €100,00 per annum, the differential between these groups will be 1.5%. If the Deputy's argument is that the differential must be maintained, that is already being achieved.
If the Deputy's subsequent question is about the extent to which we can protect incomes at the lower level, as I indicated, the Government is prepared to contribute to that objective by ensuring levy does not apply at or below the minimum wage. At the time of the signing of the agreement, the inflation forecast was 3% for 2009, whereas the inflation now forecast for next year is 2.5%. In fact the problem next year will not be inflation, but deflation — we are seeing inflation going down as a result of reduced activity and the flattening out of export markets in terms of activity as well. That differential is being retained and the 0.5% in terms of the protection of living standards will now be available next year to a greater extent, in addition to what was already negotiated.
When one looks at this in the continuum, the fact is that we have achieved an enormous amount during the good times, in terms of taking people out of the tax net altogether. Some 500,000 people on low and modest incomes who had previously paid tax were taken out of the tax net, as a result of the Government's policies. There is also the point that the average industrial wage has increased by €15,000 in that period as well, yet the amount of per capita tax paid is €1,000 less. That is a very important fact. In 1983 the average industrial wage was €18,000 and now it is around €35,000. As regards those on low pay as well, there is the question of increasing the family income supplement, FIS, eligibility arrangements for working families with children. This ensures that a family on FIS in receipt of €20,000 in wages, now gets an additional €726, if there are two children. These are important “other mechanisms”, when one looks at how the taxation impacts on take home pay, along with the fact that so many people have been taken out of the tax net, when in the past — before the Fianna Fáil-led Administration came back into office in 1997 — after pretty meagre allowances, people were paying a standard rate of 26%.
There is, therefore, an indication of a very concentrated effort when times were good to lighten the load of workers and the tax take of the average industrial wage was reduced from 27% to 15% as a result. We now face exceptional times, and an income levy was introduced which maintained the differential. The fact that there will be lower inflation next year than at the time of its negotiation is a further indication as to why people should have a positive disposition towards having the pay agreement ratified. I hope all of these issues and information can be taken into the mix, as well as the fact that we are living in exceptional times. It is important in terms of participatory democracy that people are in a position to pay according to their means, recognising the weight we give to social partnership. As I said, I was in a position to announce today that it would not apply to those on the minimum wage or lower.
On the——
I am calling Deputy Gilmore. We have very little time and Deputy Barrett is offering as well.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question about Aer Lingus.
No, the Deputy has had a good run. Please allow Deputy Gilmore to speak.
The Taoiseach did not answer the specific questions I posed about Aer Lingus. The Ceann Comhairle says I have had a good run, but while I do not wish to cut across Deputy Gilmore, we are normally entitled to a second supplementary.
It is 3.15 p.m. and time and tide wait for no man.
I welcome the fact that the Government appears to be making some movement on the income tax levy and is offering some response to the position that was put to it by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. However, I would like to know more about what it intends to do here. What will be the cost of the decision to now exempt earnings at or below the national minimum wage from the income levy? In the context of the budgetary arithmetic, where is it proposed that this will come from?
How will this work? Will incomes at or under the national minimum wage be exempt from the levy or will employees whose income is at or under the minimum wage be exempt? What is the position of somebody earning just over the national minimum, say, €1 weekly or €100 more per annum? Will he or she be liable for the levy on his or her entire income or on the portion of his or her income over the national minimum wage? What is the position of somebody on the national minimum wage who does a bit of overtime? Will he or she be liable for the levy on the full amount of the income or just on the portion of overtime he or she does? What is the position of somebody who has two part-time jobs, one on the national minimum wage and one above it? Will he or she pay the levy on the totality of his or her income or only on the job which is above the national minimum wage?
Does the Taoiseach regret having entered into this recent pay agreement under social partnership given that any increases will be taken away by increases in taxation? Does he agree it makes a total farce of the situation that in order to meet the targets set, he must reduce services other than pay? Cutting services to the public will make more public servants redundant because they will not be available, or needed, to provide the services. The whole situation is contradictory.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the sensible thing to do is to ask for a two year pay freeze rather than have this ongoing situation of increasing taxation to make up for the pay increases and of cutting services which makes more public servants redundant?
To answer Deputy Gilmore's question, as he knows, this is a levy on gross income and, therefore, in respect of anything above that, the levy is applied on the full amount. That is the way it operates. A person on €18,000 a year, beyond the minimum wage, will be asked for a contribution of €180 for the year, or €3.50 tax. In the past, Deputy Gilmore was a member of a Government which probably charged them 26% tax on practically all that income. The person has one twenty-sixth of the burden he or she had in 1997 when Deputy Gilmore was Minister of State in the Department of the Marine.
That is the way the levy system works. It was the way it worked when it was introduced in 1992-93 under a Fianna Fáil-Labour Party Administration. It was also a temporary levy at that time. From memory, it applied to people on half the industrial wage which at that time was only €9,000. We are a long way beyond that now thanks to successful policies implemented in the interim.
On Deputy Barrett's question, under this agreement, we have a three month pay pause in the private sector and an 11 month pay pause in the public sector which should not be ignored and which is a good contribution by workers in an effort to contribute to stability. There are also inability to pay clauses available to employers who are not in a position to assist.
It is not correct to say nothing is being asked of the public sector in respect of payroll costs. We have indicated the necessity for a reduction of 4% on payroll costs in the coming year as a contribution.
That is different.
It is not. A reduction in payroll costs provides for getting a 4% reduction over 2008 outturn levels in 2009. It provides management with the necessary flexibility to deal with that matter rather than a more blunt instrument like an embargo where many exceptions are sought and catered for in respect of emergency workers, etc.
In respect of that way of doing things, even this year the Minister for Finance pointed out that the savings he sought from July, when he made his initial announcement of measures for savings, will be exceeded under that heading during 2008 by reason of applying it in that way and by giving management the flexibility to deal with these issues in a sensible way that does not impact adversely on service provision which it would otherwise do if it was a blunt instrument.
I apologise to Deputy Ó Caoláin but on the point he raised, the board of Aer Lingus directed management to engage with the trade union group to see how it can come forward with the necessary savings in what is currently a competitive and difficult aviation sector.