At the last general election, there was one issue on which all political parties were agreed, namely that the level of social welfare pension should be increased to €300 per week. In addition to committing to increase the pension to €300 per week, the Taoiseach's party also promised to cut the PRSI rate by 2%. When that promise was made, the Government had in its possession an actuarial review of the social insurance fund — the Government refused to publish it at that time but it was published last week — that showed that the social insurance fund would begin to go into deficit in 2010, in three years time and according to the analysis that has been done since, the shortfall could be as high as €12 billion by 2016. I have three questions related to that. When will pensioners get €300 per week? Will the Taoiseach go ahead with the promised reduction of 2% in PRSI? How does he propose to square the circle? The cost of the promise on PRSI is €640 million and the cost of the €300 pension is just over €2 billion per year. During the election the Taoiseach said he would make up the shortfall from general taxation. What increases in taxation does he intend to make up that shortfall?

Ten years ago, when I took over as Taoiseach, the pension was €70 and we have brought it to €200. As we promised, we will bring it to €300 in the lifetime of this Government. On the issue of our tax commitments, we intend to implement our policies over the five-year period as we have done in the past two Governments.

We published the Green Paper on pensions last week, in fulfilment of a major commitment, not in the programme for Government but in Towards 2016. That Green Paper reviews the pensions system, it identifies the challenges and includes all the issues that will affect the social insurance fund in the years ahead, such as demographic change, issues regarding the sustainability of the pension system, pensioner incomes, the contribution of various elements of the pension system, including the social welfare system and work flexibility. They will affect whether it is in surplus or deficit. The Government has set out its position in the Green Paper and we have already engaged in discussions with the social partners. The issue has been opened out to wider debate in the next nine months or so and, based on that debate, we will make the decision, not just for the short term, which is obviously important for the social fund for the next few years, but also into the longer term.

I do not recall the figures off the top of my head but it is very clear they will have a huge effect on the social area. The proportion of the population aged over 65 is expected to more than double between now and mid-century from 11% to 28%. The number of people of working age compared with those aged over 65 will decrease from 6% now to 2% by mid-century. The spending on public pensions, social welfare and public service is projected to increase from 5% of GDP to 13% of GDP. These are fundamental issues that will not greatly affect the social insurance fund in the very short term but will have profound effects in the longer term. We hope, over the next 12 months to make those decisions for the short term and the longer term, rather than allow the matter to drift.

I thank the Taoiseach for giving me all that information about the Green Paper on pensions. I did not ask him about the Green Paper on pensions. I asked him about the actuarial report, carried out by Mercer Consulting, on the social insurance fund. Let me raise it a second time. Do I understand from the Taoiseach's reply that the €300 pension will be introduced in five years' time? He said it would be introduced at the end of the term of Government, by which I presume he means in five years' time. Is that correct?

The Taoiseach promised during the general election campaign that the rate of PRSI contribution would be cut from 4% to 2%. Will that go ahead? How does he propose to fund it? The Taoiseach had available to him, at the time he made the promise, the information that the social insurance fund would go into deficit in three years' time. Will he go ahead with the cut in the PRSI rate and how does he propose to finance that cut?

Perhaps Deputy Gilmore does not want me to do anything on the old age pension until 2012——

I want the Taoiseach to do it now.

——but that is not the policy of this Government. We do not want to go back to what his colleague did and give such miserly pension increases. We refuse to go down that road. Our practice has been to give significant increases.

Answer the question.

We have a record on old age pensions, the Labour Party does not. Our record stands for itself.

The Taoiseach without interruption. That includes Deputies on his own benches.

It is our intention to implement our tax policies but it will be a matter for the budget. On Deputy Gilmore's point about the disimprovement of €1 billion in taxes in 2007 and the implications for future resources and political choices——

I did not ask that question either.

——as I have said previously, the economy is now forecast to grow at lower levels than envisaged at budget time. I will not give the budget today as that will be on 5 December.

I am not asking that. Will the Government go ahead with the PRSI cut?

I said we would implement our tax policies but do not ask me to give details of the budget.

The Taioseach promised a cut in PRSI. Will he go ahead with it?

There is no point having a budget day if I am to give all the information beforehand. The economy is now forecast to grow at lower levels than envisaged.

We are getting the answer all right.

It is being run into the ground.

More of the growth, it is assumed, will come from the external sector. This means the growth in tax revenues will ease somewhat. That does not take away from our commitments and we intend to keep our budget in broad balance so that the general Government deficits remain close to balance in years ahead. We will, however, continue to implement our policies as we have resources to do so.