Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach when he next plans to meet the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30234/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the negotiations in the social partnership agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30606/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach when he will next meet with the social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30607/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask 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. [30609/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the position regarding the social partnership process. [30662/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding correspondence sent to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 20 May 2009 relating to a proposed new jobs initiative; if he has received a definitive response from the social partners to same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30663/09]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with trade unions, employers and other social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31175/09]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in implementing the further measures to support national recovery which he announced on 24 June 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31181/09]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.

The Government has had extensive discussions with the social partners during the course of the year following the framework agreed with them on 28 January 2009. Under that framework we agreed on the need to stabilise the public finances to achieve a reduction in the overall Government deficit to below 3% by 2013 through an appropriate combination of expenditure and taxation adjustments. We also agreed on the need for a range of measures to stabilise the economy and minimise negative social impacts, including maximising economic activity and employment in the short term; stabilise the financial and banking sector; help those who lose their jobs; and address difficulties facing pensions schemes. Extensive subsequent engagement since January has focused in large part on these elements.

The Government published a series of measures reflecting these discussions on 23 June. In that document, the Government indicated its wish to continue to engage with the social partners, in the context of the framework agreed in January, on measures to support national recovery. Talks with the unions resumed last month in plenary session and a further round of bilateral engagement between management and unions in the various sectors has commenced.

The National Implementation Body continues to meet as necessary to oversee delivery of the industrial peace and stability provisions of the Towards 2016 review and transitional agreement. Meetings of the body also provide the opportunity for the parties to the social partnership agreement to discuss informally pay and workplace matters under the agreement. In recent months, the body was involved in assisting a number of parties, including the dispute in the electrical contracting sector.

The reported rise in industrial unrest in recent months is a cause for concern and clearly underlines the importance of mobilising support for strategic action to build confidence and restore competitiveness. The Government remains committed to engagement with the social partners to maximise support for the measures required for national recovery and to progress a range of issues, including support for enterprise, employment and competitiveness.

The National Economic and Social Council published a report which again argues the case for an integrated approach that is seen to address each of the dimensions of our crisis in a coherent and logical fashion. It emphasises that this is a matter for all economic and social actors, and not just for the Government. In particular, it argues that this overall approach should be embedded in upcoming budgetary decisions and in fiscal policy in the coming years. In response to the challenge set out in the report, the Government proposes to meet with the social partners to discuss whether there is sufficient basis to secure an agreed national response to the current economic crises. The first of these meetings will take place this evening.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach makes it sound as though the social partnership process is alive and well. What is remarkable about the meeting this week with the social partners is that it appears to be the exception. What is on the agenda for that meeting? I appreciate that he cannot be specific, but can the Taoiseach broadly indicate what the Government will be putting to the social partners at the meeting? In his opening remarks, he indicated that agreement was secured in January to meet certain targets on the public finances and to make adjustments to them. There has been continued comment on the Government's intention to secure an adjustment of €4 billion in the forthcoming budget. Does that remain the position? What is the position with regard to the mix of measures that will make up that €4 billion? I am referring here to expenditure cuts, taxation measures and the capital programme. Does the Government intend to put any position to the social partners on pay and if so, what will it consist of in broad terms?

When I asked the Taoiseach about the social partners in the summer, he informed me that the Government was announcing a new job subsidy scheme with an allocation of €250 million. What progress has been made on the scheme? What kind of applications have been made to it? What moneys have been expended on it to date?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be better for the Deputy to address the details of his latter questions to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

The discussions with the social partners are about meeting with them on the basis of the updated NESC report, which confirms that an integrated approach is needed to resolve the problems that we face. Engaging with the social partners is not just a matter for the Government, but for everybody, because nobody can absent himself or herself from the responsibilities we now face.

The breakdown of the manner in which the adjustment will be made across the various areas of expenditure is the subject of budgetary discussion at the moment. We are going through the various Departments as we prepare for the December budget. Like the leader of the Labour Party, we believe public sector pay and pensions need to be controlled. In light of the scale of the adjustment that is necessary, reductions in those areas have to be part of the equation. The manner in which that is achieved can be the subject of further discussions. There is no doubt that the scale of adjustment is such that this issue cannot be avoided.

The Deputy's third point related to the decisions and proposals that have been made. He is aware that we have proposed a stabilisation fund. Hundreds of firms have made applications under the subsidy scheme. We changed the criteria for the percentage of a company's turnover that needs to relate to the export sector in line with a recommendation that had been made by Enterprise Ireland on that particular point.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Government intend to put a position to the social partners in respect of pay? The first issue that has to be addressed is pay in the public sector. Will the Government put an actual proposal in that regard to the social partners? Does the Government have a policy on the second issue that has to be addressed, which is pay in the private sector? The Taoiseach referred to disputes that are threatened and are taking place. I am sure he is concerned about the current tendency to ignore the recommendations of the Labour Court, for example, in the cases of Coca-Cola and Budget Travel. A number of attempts have been made to resolve issues arising from the closure of travel shops by Budget Travel, which is a profitable company. The company recently rejected the recommendations of the Labour Court. Does the Taoiseach intend to make any observations or proposals to the social partners about the need for compliance with the industrial relations machinery of the country, in the interests of maintaining industrial peace?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government will give an up-to-date assessment of its view on the current budgetary and fiscal challenges. When one looks at public expenditure in general, one notes that, in broad terms, one third of public money is spent on social welfare and social services, one third is spent on public sector pay and pensions and one third is spent on the provision of services. Our first aim is to try to stabilise the level of deficit that currently exists, in line with what we submitted to the European Commission on foot of our recent discussions with Commissioner Almunia. Deputies will agree that such action is important not only for the sake of the finances and economy of this country, but also for the signal it sends to those who invest their funds. Now that we have a large deficit, we need to show that we are prepared to take the necessary steps to effect national recovery more quickly than would otherwise be the case, without putting at risk many of the advances we have made. Therefore, no area of expenditure is immune from consideration in this respect.

We will put our assessment of the situation to the social partners. We will hear what they have to say about that. I am prepared to work with people on the basis that we have a job to do and a scaled adjustment to achieve. I will listen to any ideas or views people may have about how best to achieve that adjustment in a way that minimises the impact on the delivery of services. If we examine the situation as we have traditionally done during the Estimates process - by seeking savings in the context of the provision of services only, on the basis that the other budgetary areas are immune from consideration - we will have to require that aspect of the budget to take a very large adjustment. That is not feasible in the present circumstances. We want to make known our views on the best way forward based on the position we are in. We want to do so in the spirit of partnership and social engagement, which are part of how we do our business.

With regard to the question of recent industrial relations disputes – some private sector ones were mentioned – the Government does not condone the use of any improper or aggressive tactics by employers or trade unions in disputes. They fly in the face of the positive industrial relations tradition that the Government, Congress and IBEC have worked so hard to nurture over many years.

As the Deputy will know, we are committed to legislating in the context of the recently published Employment Agency Regulation Bill to prohibit the use of agency workers in cases of an official strike or lockout. Discussions have been formally initiated as to how to give effect to the Government's commitments to legislate to prevent victimisation in the workplace on the grounds of union membership and to provide that those mechanisms put in place under the Industrial Relations Act 2004 can operate as originally intended. The successful conclusion of that work will represent another important addition to the mix of voluntary and legislative frameworks for the protection of workers and the resolution of disputes. Should it prove necessary, we will have an opportunity to monitor and further refine procedural arrangements and legislative obligations given our shared determination to defend the flexibility, responsiveness, impartiality and effectiveness of the existing industrial relations system.

The Coca-Cola dispute was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on 18 September and the court issued a recommendation on 21 September. It is centred on a decision by the company to outsource those remaining elements of its distributional warehousing operations, affecting some 130 of its employees at a number of sites around the country. The company has declined to accept the court's recommendation in this case. Subsequent clarification issued by the court in recent days has not changed the company's position. A formal request has now been received from Congress for a meeting of the National Implementation Body in regard to the dispute. No date for a meeting has been set as yet but I hope the parties can find the basis for an agreed settlement given their record of practical problem solving and generally good industrial relations heretofore.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened careful to the Taoiseach's reply and noted he said we want to put our views forward on where we should go from here. What does the Taoiseach want from the meeting with the social partners? What views will he express on the way forward, as he sees it, given the circumstances in which we now find ourselves? Does the Taoiseach propose to inform the social partners that it is the Government's intention to cut public sector pay? If so, at what magnitude and above what level will the cuts apply?

Is the Taoiseach happy in general with the way in which social partnership has operated? Members on this side of the House have complained for some years that the last people to have had any information on what was happening within and around social partnership were the elected politicians, of all parties and none. Is the Taoiseach, having been involved with social partnership for a number of years, happy that its structure is such that it has the capacity to deliver? Although it has been very helpful for many years in stabilising a strategy for productivity and keeping at bay industrial unease, we are now in very different circumstances. Can the current structure of social partnership deliver what the Taoiseach believes is necessary? Will he comment on this?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Pay and pensions comprise a very considerable proportion of total public expenditure, as I have outlined in broad terms. The severity of the funding crisis has already brought about a reduction in the numbers employed in the public service. With colleagues retiring and taking career breaks, and with the moratorium on recruitment in place, there is wide recognition among staff and their representatives that the manner in which the public service conducts its business must be changed, with the further impetus to seek greater flexibility and productivity in all areas.

The public service is no different from its private sector counterparts facing a crisis in their business. In the private sector we have seen pay levels, pension arrangements, work practices and working patterns and hours featuring as part of the solution as employers, employees and union representatives work together in seeking to retain jobs and avoid redundancies. The same is true of the public service. Public servants have also experienced significant change in their net incomes as a result of the introduction of the pension levy. I acknowledge that public servants at all levels have already demonstrated a capacity for change. I believe staff can respond positively and with flexibility to the continuing challenge of managing our way through the current economic difficulties.

There is a willingness by Government to engage at national and local level to bring about the changes that are needed. The Government, as employer, must look at all the options which would minimise the impact on public services and public service jobs of unavoidable spending reductions.

We have an objective. We signalled on a number of occasions that the pay and pensions Bill must be part of the equation. We want to give our assessment of that and hear people's constructive views on how it might make a contribution to decisions. The Government must reserve its position as an employer until it is clear how that contribution will manifest itself.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important to state that public sector workers did not cause this crisis. They have become a much maligned group. Their value, capacity and potential is not being realised because of the structures in which they have to work. I have been here for a number of years and my view is that the public servants will always respond to clear and decisive leadership and strong motivation. They have that capacity to deliver. Can the Taoiseach confirm that it is not the Government's intention to cut the pay of lower and middle income public sector workers?

I am aware of hospital rooms which are filled with equipment which may never be used because it was purchased on invoices for times ahead in order to spend money allocated in Votes. The same applies in a number of local authorities. The structure within which the public sector must operate cannot deliver.

Is it the Taoiseach's intention to spell out to social partnership how the Government proposes to re-start the economy by creating jobs and job opportunities? Where does Government lie in that regard? There is a range of activities, some published by Deputies Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney, which would create a stimulus to protect and generate jobs and get people back to work. Does the Taoiseach intend to spell out to the social partners the value of listening to what the Government has to say? What are the Government's job creation and job protection targets in the period ahead?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Kenny knows the scale of the public finances crisis which confronts the country. Stabilising next year's deficit requires a considerable adjustment. Is it his contention that there are swathes of the population who can be immune from contributing to the necessary adjustment? If so, that is not a fair, comprehensible or accurate assessment of the situation.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach said he wants to put the Government's views before the people. I am asking him what they are.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Kenny suggests that there are swathes of people who could be immune from contributing. I simply make the point that the situation we face in terms of the public finances requires that every area of public expenditure on all fronts has to be considered. All areas of the public sector have to be considered. One acknowledges the role the public service plays in our society. Public service employers are the same as private sector employers. Based on the resources that are coming into the coffers we must examine how we can make an adjustment over a period of years, not overnight, and at the same time do so in a way that closes the gap between revenue and expenditure, which at the moment is running in the order of €500 million a week. That is the situation. It is important that one looks at every area of public expenditure.

On the pay and pensions side of the equation we will look at all ways in which that can be achieved. We will listen to what others have to say about that. The suggestion that there are large categories which can be immune from consideration would not allow one to draw up the sort of budget that would meet the imperative in the situation that we face.

On job creation and competitiveness, a fundamental part of that must be the stabilisation of the public finance position of the country. Without that, one puts at risk the return of confidence to the economy. There is a need to be seen to do it and to demonstrate that one is prepared to do it in the long-term interests of the economy. That is vital in the present circumstances. The Government is working to the objective. On our part we continue our effort to improve the prospects of not only maintaining jobs in the economy but to create them again in the future. Jobs are being created in this economy despite the severity of the recession, but more jobs have been lost than gained in the past 12 months. Thankfully, we have seen a levelling off in the rate of job losses. That is to be welcomed in itself.

Again, it is an indication that we have to reinforce our efforts to put a floor on our public finance position which would enable us to grow and invest again. It is clear from all of the analysis that has been done that next year will be a difficult year but one which should see growth return to the economy in the latter part of the year based on current assumptions and best analysis of world trends as things stand.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the position in so far as voluntary redundancies in the public sector are concerned? That was mentioned by the Minister for Health and Children on a number of occasions in respect of her Department, and other Ministers in respect of theirs. The Fine Gael Party has spelled out its views about cutting the costs of the public sector on many occasions. What is the position in respect of voluntary redundancies? Is that part of the view the Taoiseach will express to the social partners? It was indicated that all of the sectors are not immune. However, I understand that less than 50% of members of the Judiciary voluntarily handed back remuneration. How does the Taoiseach propose to deal with the situation where he does not want to create an isolated elite if all sectors are to be included and that sector is protected by articles in the Constitution?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important to point out that we look to all sections of the community to make a contribution, but we also have to do so in a way that respects and is consistent with the constitutional independence of the Judiciary. I hope and believe that will all be demonstrated in due course to be the case. I do not wish to enter into a controversy with any particular section of the community. My job as Taoiseach is to outline in full the present position, which requires everybody, according to their means and abilities, to make a contribution to the situation. The Government is not in a position to say that one third, two thirds or three quarters of public expenditure cannot be considered in the context of finding the necessary moneys to effect the adjustment that is necessary. It would be too great a burden on the provision of services to do that. That is my honest assessment of the position. Further efficiencies and effectiveness can be obtained through a variety of measures, including redeployment, controlling numbers and having more flexibilities in the system. There are many mechanisms which can be considered that would assist in arriving at a contribution that would come from the public sector pay and pension bill. The Government has to reserve its position to make sure that the ultimate contribution it gets is fair and equitable in all the circumstances given the other areas of expenditure we have to consider.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach agree that any form of social partnership agreement is worthless unless it deals with the actual conditions people face in their workplaces? Will he also agree that there is no so-called social partnership where a system allows workers, in particular the workers in Coca-Cola and dockers previously employed by Marine Terminals Limited, to be treated in the way they have been treated? Will he join me in deploring the actions of Coca-Cola HBC Ireland management in sacking its workers on 8 September last while they were on the picket line? Does he recognise the wider implications for all workers and for industrial relations in the State of the outsourcing by Coca-Cola of the jobs of 130 SIPTU members at the warehousing and distribution centres in Dublin, Cork, Tipperary, Waterford and Tuam? Will he further deplore - I did not hear him say this when answering questions earlier - the company's failure to abide by the Labour Court's findings and the company's determination, despite it being a highly profitable one, to dump jobs and to drive down wages and conditions? Will he join me in commending South Dublin County Council which, on the proposal of a former Deputy, Councillor Seán Crowe, voted to boycott all Coca-Cola products until the dispute is settled? All parties, including the Taoiseach's, supported that motion. Will the Taoiseach join me in making the same call for the Houses of the Oireachtas to boycott Coca-Cola products as a symbol of our determination to ensure the labour relations mechanisms are upheld in Ireland given the times we are in?

Will the Taoiseach also deplore the actions of Marine Terminals Limited, which is implementing forced redundancies and introducing new "take it or leave it" contracts, reducing wages and severely worsening the working conditions in this area? Is he aware that more than 60 workers have been on strike there for a number of months and that the management has imported scab labour and heavy handed security from Britain to try to enforce its vision of social partnership? What value is social partnership if employers can act with impunity in these ways?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I said in an earlier response on this matter, it is important to point out that the seven social partnership agreements we have had have helped to provide the stability and the means by which society generally has progressed, not only in terms of wage and remuneration or pay issues between employers and employees but in terms of the wider social policy advancements that have been made on the basis of the social partnership framework. It has been an excellent success in that respect. It has brought many improvements to working people's lives for many years. Many of the advances in terms of greater take home pay, better terms and conditions of employment, and better and more widely available opportunities for working families and their children, in terms of education provision and in all other respects, have been as a result of a commitment by the social partners to the process.

Of course it involves compromises and having to work out shared objectives, but, at the end of the day, there is no doubt that, as a governance mechanism, it has proven itself to be a good way in which to organise interests in this society. This includes those contributing not only in respect of their own expertise or area of involvement, whether as trade unions, farm and business organisations or as the voluntary pillar, but also in terms of being able to get a wider and shared understanding of how the economy works and how best to achieve the objectives to which people give priority in that context. I honestly believe it has been a good process.

That does not excuse in particular cases - there is both a statutory and a voluntarist arrangement in industrial relations - aggressive or improper tactics being used by employers or trade unions in respect of the resolution of disputes. On the specific issues Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised, I indicated that the National Implementation Body has been asked to take up the Coca-Cola case and to hold a meeting to see how we can help resolve that problem in a way that is consistent with best practice in industrial relations. From my point of view, there is a need for everyone to take responsibility for respecting the frameworks, which have been built up over the years and to which everyone has subscribed.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two matters on which I want clarification. First, in respect of the adjustment in the public finances, the figure of €4 billion has been the accepted wisdom so far. I understand it was the figure sent by the Government to the European Commission and it was also the figure referred to by the Minister for Finance in the supplementary budget last April. Is that still the Government's target or is there a different figure? The Government has stated publicly that its objective is to achieve a €4 billion adjustment. Does the broad configuration of that €4 billion, which the Minister for Finance mentioned in the supplementary budget last April, still apply?

The second issue on which I want clarification is public sector pay. Regarding the Taoiseach's meetings with the social partners, is it his intention to try to secure agreement with the social partners on how the public sector pay bill might be reduced?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, the figure of adjustment we believe is required is in the order of €4 billion, given that at present we are seeking to stabilise, let alone reduce, the deficit position for next year vis-á-vis this year. This is an important point to make.

On the question of the public sector pay bill, as I have stated, we believe that is an area of public expenditure from which a contribution will have to be made towards making that adjustment and we are anxious to discuss with social partners how that can be best achieved, while recognising that it must be achieved. We are prepared to discuss with the social partners their views on that matter while, at the same time, noting, as an employer must, the fact that there is a contribution to be made from that side of the equation which cannot be avoided.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Earlier, the Taoiseach mentioned the recent reports from the National Economic and Social Council. It is fair to say that its analysis is valuable and I am interested to know whether the Taoiseach agrees with it - that there is a five-part crisis, namely, a fiscal crisis, a jobs and competitiveness crisis, a social crisis, a reputational crisis and a banking crisis. Does the Taoiseach agree with that analysis?

Second, does he agree with the reports' analysis that, to date, the Government's actions in this regard have been compartmentalised and sequential? Part of the criticism made is that the Government has addressed the banking issue as if it is a separate issue without looking at how it impacts socially on people in difficulty with their mortgages or in debt and that the Government is dealing with the fiscal crisis as a bookkeeping exercise without considering how it affects employment. Does the Taoiseach agree with the analysis by the National Economic and Social Council in terms of there being a five-part crisis and with its criticism that to date, the Government's approach to the crisis has not been integrated?

While the National Economic and Social Council has put forward a coherent analysis it has not put forward serious and realistic propositions in terms of how each of the five issues can be addressed. However, analysis is easy and solutions are difficult. Given that all the social partners are involved in that forum has the Taoiseach considered asking NESC to come up with proposals in regard to how the five issues could be addressed in an integrated way?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The analysis we received from NESC earlier this month follows its analysis provided in January which fed into the February framework. It also provided further analysis in March. The Government recognises that there are many facets to this problem. The analysis also makes the fundamental point that this matter is not alone the responsibility of Government but of all economic and social actors in society who must come together to find a nationally supported way forward. We have been seeking to achieve this through the framework process agreed in February, an obvious imposition of which was the pension levy for which there was not agreement. However, that necessary and urgent decision had to be taken and was confirmed, in terms of its impact, in respect of the reputation of our country in regard to bond issues and so on.

I do not accept that the critique is fundamentally against the Government. The analysis points out that there is a need for all aspects of the crisis to be addressed. Getting agreement in this regard is always a problem. There has been much analysis. In June, we introduced measures through which we are seeking to assist on the skills and training front, including the stabilisation scheme and the employment subsidy scheme. Also, the number of available places for training and upskilling has doubled since 2008, up from 66,000 to 130,000.

There has been a response from Government in all areas. On the financial front, the issue to be debated in this House in the coming weeks is part of that response. We believe the National Asset Management Agency legislation is the means by which we can do this. Again, the response by markets to its publication and progress has been positive. The final issue is the budget and how that will be addressed. While there are many views in this House in regard to what should be the scale of adjustments the Government is of the view that if we are to effect a quick recovery we must avoid prolonging the crisis in our public finances, with all of the attendant difficulties that brings with it. While we have a high deficit and a relatively low debt, although rising quickly, we may quickly end up in a situation whereby we could move from debt interest at 4% to 11.5% to 20% by 2013, which would be a huge drain on the capacity of this country to deliver services given the great shortfall in our tax revenue position during the past two fiscal years.

I can understand why people might put forward a proposition that there is perhaps a different way of approaching this. However, I am of the view that we need to take decisions which lessen the prospect of that increase of debt interest as a percentage of what we are collecting in terms of revenue as this could impact in an adverse way our ability to fund services. That, in many respects, is the dilemma and difficulty we face. By the same token we must look at what it is we need to do, taking everything into account, including what is being said by the EU and European Central Bank, which has been helpful throughout the current crisis. From our own point of view, we must avoid a situation where we deflect more of a reducing resource towards interest on debt rather than addressing the debt issue itself, which means making a significant adjustment in the first couple of years.