Last week the Taoiseach misled the Dáil on the health proposals contained in Sinn Féin's alternative budget. He also did this on the North in responding to questions from Teachta Mary Lou McDonald two weeks ago. Incidentally, he gave an entirely untruthful account of the Northern talks process in an interview with the Irish Examiner and in Government briefings for The Irish Times today. The substance of these issues and the reason he did it are matters for another time; I raise them now to illustrate my main point which is whether we believe the Taoiseach or whether we believe Fianna Fáil. Yesterday in this Chamber the Taoiseach said Fianna Fáil had not raised with him the need to reverse the unfair 2012 changes to the State pension which disproportionately impact on women. As he knows, tens of thousands of men and women are not receiving a full State pension. These are senior citizens who get up as early as the Taoiseach or me every morning if they are able, and many are losing as much as €30 every week.

Sinn Féin in its alternative budget. which the Taoiseach has said he has read, proposed to reverse this injustice, but the Government ignored this proposal, just as the previous Government did when we made the same proposal last year. Furthermore, in December Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil blocked a Sinn Féin motion which called for the 2012 changes to be reversed. There were a number of opportunities for the Government to deal with this issue, but it refused to do so. When the Taoiseach says Fianna Fáil did not raise this important issue with him, he might clarify that he means the Fianna Fáil leader, but despite not raising it with the Taoiseach, Deputy Mícheál Martin has now tabled a Dáil motion to achieve the very outcome his party blocked last December and which it did not see fit to raise with the Taoiseach during the negotiations on last week's budget. Is the Fianna Fáil leader in breach of the confidence and supply agreement? The reason Deputy Mícheál Martin did not raise the issue with the Taoiseach is he had signed off on the confidence and supply agreement which did not include a remedy for this discrimination against these pensioners. That is why he did not want it to be included in the budget. Last week the Government and Fianna Fáil concluded negotiations which led to the totally bonkers and unbelievable budget. Now, following justifiable outrage, Deputy Mícheál Martin has done a U-turn and wants to change an essential part of his agreement with the Government. It is very likely that the Government will lose the vote on the matter if Fianna Fáil continues with its U-turn. Will the Taoiseach say where the confidence and supply agreement will stand in that case? Will the Social Welfare Bill remedy this issue? When will these pensioners get their money?

I did not mislead the Dáil last week on Sinn Féin's health policies. Deputy Gerry Adams is the great misleader in Irish politics, and let nobody be in doubt about that. Last week he claimed it would cost €691 billion alone for the health service to stand still. He also claimed that his budget proposals which would have provided an extra €450 million were on top of this. I have read Sinn Féin's budget proposal again and that is not what it states. I invite anyone who is independent on these matters to scrutinise it as it demonstrates once again that Sinn Féin's policy is like asking people to buy a pig in a poke. When one goes through it, the figures simply do not add up. I will not mention the €2 billion of tax increases Sinn Féin proposed imposing on people, with 14 different tax increases on everything from betting, inheritances, pensions and employment.

It is important to understand there are different types of pensions paid by the State: there is the public service pension paid to public servants, the non-contributory State pension which is means-tested and the contributory State pension. This issue relates only to one of them, the contributory State pension. It works like any other contributory pension such as the pensions Deputies are paid, as well as people across the public and private sectors. The amount of pension is related to the number of contributions one has made. It is normal in workplaces for someone to have to work for 40 years to qualify for a full pension or, in some cases, 30 years and to make contributions into the pension fund for each of those years. That is how a contributory pension works.

Sinn Féin's pre-budget document proposed to reverse one set of changes, namely, the ones made in 2012. However, if one were to reverse those changes, it would not give the people in question a full pension either because even before 2012, contributions were banded in a particular way, which gave people with fewer than 48 contributions on average less than a full pension. As is so often the case when we discuss this issue, it is not as straightforward as people want to make it out to be. It is very complicated. If we are to make changes, they should not be piecemeal. We should understand what they are, how much they would cost, how they would affect individuals and different groups in society and the knock-on effects they might have. To help with a rational discussion of this the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, will publish the actuarial review of the PRSI or Social Insurance Fund which will help to inform the debate. If we care about the pensioners of today and the future, it is most important that we ensure the Social Insurance Fund does not become bankrupt. It was in deficit for years. When I became Minister for Social Protection, because of the recovery in the economy it went back into surplus but the actuarial analysis shows that it will return to being in deficit again in coming years. We will do nothing for any pensioner if we make changes now or in the future that will bankrupt the fund. We must ensure the amount of money coming in from contributions from people paying PRSI today will be enough to match what the State pays out in pensions and other benefits.

The core matter is the reversal of the cut made in 2012. Does the Taoiseach accept that the 2012 cut is unjust? Does he accept that these people are entitled to a full pension? Does he accept that they cannot afford the cut? Thirty euro is a bottle of wine or some such little ornamentation for members of the Cabinet-----

Please allow Deputy Gerry Adams to continue, without interruption.

Where does the Deputy buy his wine?

That is good wine. You have very expensive tastes there, Gerry.

Deputy Gerry Adams without interruption.

What I said - the Government and Fianna Fáil Deputies heard me - was "for the Cabinet".

Deputies should act responsibly. I will give Deputy Gerry Adams injury time.

It takes years to ferment, of course.

I am sure the pensioners who will be watching "Oireachtas Report" will see the unity between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael on this issue.

The clock is running.

Our alternative budget provided for the reversal of this cut.

He is sipping his glass of wine watching "Oireachtas Report".

Deputies are depriving other Members of time to ask questions later.

He is not adhering to his own rules on pay.

I will repeat myself. Our alternative budget proposal provided the means to reverse this cut and costed it at €70 million. The Taoiseach has not contradicted that or challenged it. Neither has he challenged the fact that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil can, between them, reverse this cut. The root of the problem is they decided not to. They decided in their confidence and supply agreement and in their budget last week that they would not include this. It was not included in the budget priorities.

Tá an t-am caite.

It was not included by their spokespersons in any of their Dáil or budget speeches.

The Taoiseach to respond.

I ask again, when will these pensioners get their money?

The Taoiseach to respond and he has one minute.

I will repeat my point.

Deputy Adams got injury time. I have been very reasonable.

It is a little amount of money for the people in the Cabinet. It is a huge amount of money for pensioners who are deprived of it. The Taoiseach should reverse it quickly and speedily.

Every time I listen to Deputy Adams speak it is so evident that he does not fully understand the detail of the issue he is raising, nor does he understand, once again, his own party's proposal. His party's proposal is to reverse the changes made in 2012. That still does not give any of those people a full pension. It might give them something approaching a 98% pension rather than a 71% one or an 80% one.

The difference is €30.

It is remarkable that every time Deputy Adams stands up in this Parliament it is so evident that he neither understands the policy issues the Government is grappling with nor does he understand his own party's proposals. It is extraordinary, I have to say, the level of-----

Arrogance on your part.

-----lack of knowledge and understanding from Deputy Adams again and again.

The Taoiseach without interruption.

It is not surprising that he thinks a bottle of wine costs €30 in that context.

That is why we never see him hanging around the bar here.

I know Deputy Adams likes to travel first class whenever he can find someone to pay for him, but I am not sure who is buying his bottles of wine for him. It is some bottle of wine that costs €30.

Smoked salmon.

With regard to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the matter was not raised with me personally but I can confirm the matter was raised briefly in discussions between spokespeople in the run-up to the budget.

Thanks for that clarification, at least.

Now, Regina.

It was raised by Fianna Fáil spokespeople with Ministers.

We have to observe the time limits.

However, it was not put down as a priority measure because the priority for parties was the €5 increase across the board-----

We have to observe the time limits.

-----for disabled people, carers, blind people, widows, pensioners and unemployed people.

There will be other opportunities.

In any budget we have to prioritise. There is only a certain amount of money. The other priority, particularly on this side of the House-----

Taoiseach, please co-operate.

-----was to make sure we did something on children and increasing the family income supplement, which we did, increasing the qualified child payment for the first time in eight years.

The Taoiseach will get another opportunity.

The priority in terms of the parties that are party to the confidence and supply agreement was increases across the board and targeting poverty, and that is what was done. In that sense, the confidence and supply agreement was honoured.