I welcome the fact that the Government has invited ICTU to talks. I hope this invitation will be accepted and I hope the talks will result in the calling off of next week's day of action. It is critical at this time in our nation's development that public services be enabled to continue and that the reputation of our country be kept at a high level. From that perspective, I hope the day of action is called off and meaningful discussions can take place.

In that context, the Taoiseach has asked on a number of occasions for constructive suggestions from Opposition parties. Presumably, when the talks take place with ICTU in the context of social partnership, they will be meaningful discussions and the Taoiseach will impart information, which he is not prepared to give to Oireachtas Members, who are the elected representatives of all the people and all sectors in this country. On 13 March, the Fine Gael Party through its finance spokesperson, Deputy Bruton, wrote to the Minister for Finance looking for information relevant to the budget to be introduced on 7 April. That letter has not even been acknowledged yet, never mind providing the information sought therein.

It is worse than a county council.

On 3 March, the Taoiseach stated in the House:

. . . by the end of the month we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the framework we have set for ourselves, that is, a 9.5% general Government deficit for 2009, will be adhered to. It is important for the credibility of the country that we do so. Before the end of the month we will come forward with whatever measures are necessary, either in terms of expenditure savings or tax raising measures...We are committed to restoring the public finances to a sustainable position and action will be taken to ensure the deficit will not worsen from the forecasted figure of 9.5%.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was not clear on television last Sunday whether the shortfall is €4 billion, €4.5 billion or €6 billion. I understand from reports that a gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, Dr. Alan Ahearne, has advised the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party not to be concerned about the 9.5% requirement. Irish people across every sector have said they are willing to contribute to sort out this mess and they will do so from two perspectives. First, they need to understand that their contributions will go towards sorting out the problem and, second, they need to know it is being done fairly. That cannot be done unless we are absolutely clear about what we are trying to do, about the extent of the problem and about the parameters the Government is trying to close. The Taoiseach cannot expect members of the Opposition parties to come forward with meaningful suggestions when he will not impart information to us and he will not give us clarity about the gap he is trying to close.

Will the Taoiseach tell the House and the country that the borrowing requirement will be 9.5%, as he stated in the House a few weeks ago? Is that the figure the Government will adhere to in the budget on 7 April? I ask for a "Yes" or "No" answer.

I welcome the fact we have a commitment to reduce the Exchequer deficit to 3% by 2013. It is imperative we do this in a way that takes account of the capacity of the economy to bear the burden of the adjustment required at each step of the process over the five-year period. The strategy to eliminate the structural deficit over the medium term has to be credible to financial markets and to our domestic audience.

We are in the middle of a budgetary process that requires us to look at various scenarios to see what impact they will have on a fragile economy this year. We have to take account of that. We will seek to be as close as possible to the 9.5% deficit in the context of what is best for the economy but it is important we reach 3% by 2013. That is our commitment and at every stage of the process as we go through a difficult period this year, we must ensure we take whatever action is required over that period to achieve it. The important point is that, in the context of a recession that compares to the worst recession we have seen in many decades, we have to identify the structural deficit, which has to be addressed and eliminated, because in any part of a recessionary cycle there also will be a deficit that is cyclical.

A very intelligent answer.

It went over the Deputy's head.

Intelligent but unintelligible.

I am concerned about what will happen. It looks as if we are heading for another debacle. The Taoiseach's words are meaningless because, on the record of the House, he referred to a 9.5% general Government deficit for 2009. He said steps "will be taken to ensure the deficit will not worsen from the forecasted figure of 9.5%". I asked him whether that is the figure he is adhering to and he said, "as close as possible".

No.

In the words of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the shortfall is €4.5 billion, €5 billion or €6 billion. Will the general Government deficit be 9.5%, 10% or 11%? Did the Taoiseach inform the leaders of the European Union of the Government decision announced to the Dáil that the deficit would be 9.5% of GDP? Is it true that Dr. Ahearne told the parliamentary party not to worry about that? That the European Commission has given us five years to deal with our deficit is, on the one hand, a signal that it is possible to sort this out but, on the other, it also signals that we are in the worst position of any country in the eurozone, worse even than Greece which has four years to sort out its case.

I respect the Taoiseach's decision to engage with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the social partnership and I hope it results in the day of action next Monday being called off. The Taoiseach must have meaningful discussions with the partners about health, education, social welfare and the general income stream.

We are expected to prepare for a budget on 7 April without any projections or statement from the Minister for Finance as to its implications for the revenue stream or where the Government is seeking cuts and withdrawal of services. The Government may not get 100% support from the Opposition but it could at least narrow the parameters of disagreement if it gave the information to the Opposition parties they requested. The letter we wrote on 13 March to the Minister for Finance has not been even acknowledged. The Taoiseach has moved away from his words of three weeks ago. What has changed in the meantime? Is he now aware of some other set of figures? Is there something else we should be told now, in advance of the budget on 7 April which has made the Taoiseach change his tune?

There is.

Are we not entitled to know the parameters the Taoiseach is trying to close? Will the Taoiseach confirm that he has moved away from the 9.5% figure he gave the Dáil with such certainty three weeks ago? Are we to head into this budget on 7 April as ill-prepared as we were for the one in October?

What will happen if the tax figures that the Taoiseach projects are worse in three months' time than the projections? Will he come back in here with another budget or will he go to the country?

We are seeking to achieve a return to the Stability and Growth Pact guidelines of a 3% deficit by 2013. I have to take into account how to bring about a reduction in the structural deficit over that period that brings order back to the public finances in a way that does not undermine the ability of the economy to function. If Deputy Kenny believes that, regardless of the consideration we must give to all those factors, we should fixate on a particular percentage as the determining factor——

The Taoiseach gave the figure on 3 March.

It is the Taoiseach's fixation not ours.

Yes, but the Deputy should let me come to the point. I outlined our position as a result of the last budgetary forecast in the House. The public finances deteriorated in January and February. It has been difficult for every country because this recession has seen a fall-off in tax revenues across the emerging Asian economies, the former Asian tiger economies——

The Taoiseach can keep on at that.

That is a fact around the world.

The Taoiseach is innocent.

That is one of the issues that one must take into account. Small, open economies are finding the impact more difficult to handle than other economies. That is also a fact.

Economic recovery can be brought about only by a multi-annual approach that indicates the pathway to recovery we can achieve, and that will involve putting the public finances back into order. We must ensure that by 2013 we return to that 3% deficit.

The scale and magnitude of the task is great. It affects every citizen. Government is entitled to take into account all those considerations not because we do not wish to reach the target but because we want to do so in such a way that from year to year the burden of adjustment at each step is such that everybody can bear it. The Opposition wants to be dogmatic and decide to take out X billions regardless of the impact. I know what I said on that occasion.

I, too, know what the Taoiseach said.

That was my position. We have to sit down and organise a budget, get to the meat of the issue and decide how to return to 3% over five years in a way that is proper and right, taking into account all considerations including economic impact.

Is what the Taoiseach said meaningless?

It is not meaningless. There is nothing meaningless about what I had to say; we are committed to restoring order in the public finances.

He did not mean it.

It means nothing now.

We will emerge with an outcome that seeks to find a balance between the need for cuts in expenditure, the need to raise taxes and the need to revise capital programmes, all of which will happen, for several years hence in a way that protects to the greatest extent possible those whom people would like us to protect. That is not an easy task and, if necessary, based on a detailed consideration of the matter, it might involve more than the 9.5% this year. The important point for the financial markets will be the Government's determination to eliminate the structural deficit over the period concerned.

Why not say that?

How will we know?

I was answering a question on the day the Exchequer returns came out, based on the information available to me then, which was an honest assessment of the situation. I remain committed to bringing order to the public finances. If the Deputy wants me to do it in a way that seeks to destroy the economy, that is his view.

The Taoiseach has already destroyed it.

That is lucky bag politics.

The Taoiseach has already destroyed it.

The Taoiseach did that already as the Minister for Finance.

If Deputy Kenny were in my position, he also would have to give due consideration to all of that as full and detailed analysis and projections for the remainder of the year become available. That is what we must do.

The Taoiseach knows all about that.

The Deputy can proceed with the semantics of that argument. I am saying that the Government is determined to deal with this matter in a way that seeks to find a balance that will not be easily achieved.

How much has the Taoiseach achieved?

Tell the truth.

Mind the gap.