Ruairí Quinn
Question:1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his response to the OECD report on deregulation, published on 24 April 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12056/01]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - OECD Report.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:2 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he intends to establish a committee or committees within his Department in relation to competition, regulation and privatisation; and if he will make a statement in this regard with particular reference to the OECD statement of 24 April 2001. [12057/01]
Jim Higgins
Question:3 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Taoiseach the composition of the implementation group regarding the recommendations of the recent OECD report. [12318/01]
Jim Higgins
Question:4 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Taoiseach if, in the context of his announcement of the establishment of a group to oversee the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report, he will give the timescale envisaged for the implementation of the recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12321/01]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the publication of the OECD report on the Republic of Ireland on 24 April 2001. [12753/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:6 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach his views on the recent OECD report on deregulation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12810/01]
Joe Higgins
Question:7 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the OECD report on deregulation published on 24 April 2001. [12880/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the role and terms of reference of the proposed interdepartmental group to oversee implementation of the recent OECD report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12885/01]
Michael Noonan
Question:9 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the composition, role and remit of the implementation group in respect of the recent OECD report on deregulation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13589/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recently published OECD report on deregulation. [14666/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, together.
A copy of the OECD's report, Regulatory Reform in Ireland, was presented to the Government on 24 April 2001. A copy has been lodged in the Oireachtas Library for the information of Members, together with a copy of my speech on receipt of the report and the press releases issued by the OECD and the Government.
The report marks the culmination of a very detailed review process. As I said in my remarks at the time, the Government welcomes the report. I am pleased that it both records the good progress which has been made in certain areas of regulatory reform and points out areas where further actions are needed. Regulatory reform is a complex issue which cuts across the responsibilities of many Ministers, Departments and agencies. The usefulness of the report is that it draws together, probably for the first time in Ireland's case, all relevant aspects of the regulatory reform agenda.
In terms of the Government's initial response to the OECD report, a number of actions are being taken. I have written to the chairman of the joint Oireachtas committee on the SMI, inviting the committee to consider the report. A national policy statement on regulatory reform is also proposed and the precise form this will take is under consideration. A number of important studies are already under way – on the regulation of pubs and pharmacies, for example. In addition, the Competition Authority has initiated a study of professional services. I understand a preliminary public consultation on the scope of the study will be completed this week.
A key element of the Government's response is the establishment of a high level group on regulation. This will be an important mechanism to ensure greater coherence in implementing regulatory reform measures across the full spectrum of the State's activities. The Departments, Offices and other bodies which will be involved are listed in a table which is being circulated to Deputies as part of this reply.
My Department, which will chair the group at assistant secretary level, is in consultation with the relevant Departments and bodies with regard to nominations to the group. It is intended that the first meeting of the group will take place on 31 May.
The group's broad remit will be to formulate proposals and oversee implementation of the Government's response to the OECD report and advise the Government on progress being achieved. Its work will include consideration of options for implementing a model of regulatory impact assessment in the public service. The full terms of reference of the group are also being circulated with my reply.
My Department's role remains one of co-ordination and support. Clearly, individual Ministers and Departments will continue to have responsibility for regulatory reform measures in their own areas. In terms of timescale, the OECD report sets out very challenging and wide-ranging recommendations. Given their complexity and, in some instances, legislative basis, full implementation will take some time. However, the Government envisages that the high level group will make a significant contribution in terms of mapping out strategic priorities to be addressed within a period of one year from the date of its inception. The group will be asked to work to this timescale and make a progress report to the Government in the interim.
Organisations invited to nominate representatives to High Level Group on Regulation*
Government Departments and Offices:
1.Department of the Taoiseach
2.Department of Finance
3.Department of Enterprise,Trade and Employment
4.Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
5.Department of Health and Children
6.Department of the Environment and Local Government
7.Department of Public Enterprise
8.Office of the Attorney General
Other Bodies:
9.Forfás
10.Competition Authority
11.Director of Consumer Affairs
12.Office of the Director for Telecommunications Regulation
13.Commission for Electricity Regulation
14.Commission for Aviation Regulation
*Other relevant agencies, including those Government Departments and Offices not listed above and other bodies will be given the opportunity to contribute to the group's work as appropriate.
Terms of Reference of High Level Group on Regulation
1. The main objective of the high level group on regulatory reform is to:
provide a cross-agency mechanism to examine the findings of the OECD's report on regulatory reform in Ireland, to consider existing and emerging implementation plans and to report to the Government on a regular basis regarding measures in place, progress being achieved and any difficulties being encountered;
2.It is envisaged that the work of the group will include:
(a)consideration of options for a model of regulatory impact analysis for implementation in the public service and assistance with the design of such a model and/or selection of expertise;
(b)availing of the unique composition of the group to identify any inhibitors to the development of a coherent cross-sectoral system of regulatory management at national level;
(c)consideration of institutional and policy responses to give effect to, not only the recommendations of the OECD report, but a robust framework of regulatory management going forward.
3.The group will have a timeframe of one year within which to deliver its final report.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Does he agree that in one set of circumstances, regulations are necessary to ensure free, fair and effective competition but that in another, the removal of regulations currently on the Statute Book is also necessary to provide for full and fair competition? Will he indicate specifically what the Government proposes to do in regard to regulations which restrict qualifications for those wishing to practise as pharmacists in Ireland to Irish nationals, regulations which do not recognise the validity of qualifications obtained in other EU countries? This is clearly a restrictive practice which acts to the detriment of consumers and should be removed without delay. Does the Taoiseach agree that the geographical restrictions on the location of pharmacies also act to the detriment of consumers in view of the very high price of drugs, particularly non-prescription drugs, sold in these outlets? Notwithstanding the ongoing study, will he indicate what is his personal attitude to these matters and when, at a time when we are seeking workers from other countries, including EU countries, will the restrictions on pharmacists who qualified in other EU countries be removed?
I concur with the comments made by the Deputy at the outset which echo the findings of the OECD report. The regulatory reform process also entailed a large element of self-assessment over a period of time and the regulatory impact analysis spells out the areas in which regulation is required. Not alone are new regulations required but existing regulations and other items we and the OECD consider obstacles must be removed. More efficiency in and more effective regulation of the economy is required. Codification in certain areas and simpler systems are also necessary, although this might not only involve regulations. I do not agree with every aspect of the OECD report, but it stated that bottlenecks in some areas could be easily removed. That might be more difficult in other areas, but the OECD said that poor regulation is bad for the organisation of business and it highlighted many cases in that regard. The Deputy referred to two aspects with regard to pharmacies.
Qualifications and location.
Those issues were considered relatively recently in the legislation governing this area, which was enacted in the past five years. It is different in that respect. However, such provisions, particularly those of a more recent vintage, are usually included for a reason. They are not included unless a case is made for them.
Arguments continue on the points made by the Deputy and others about pharmacies. The sectoral review groups' discussions of those matters are well advanced. The matter again arose in the OECD report and I am in favour of easing the regulations for people coming in. However, the issue of location is not as simple because the argument of the Department of Health argument is that it is important that pharmacies are of a high quality. This is the purpose of the regulations. The Department is responsible for the regulations in this area and it wants to ensure that pharmacies meet international standards. It is not a case of locating a number of pharmacies in particular areas; it wants to ensure they are of sufficient quality.
The matter is under examination and the sectoral review groups will have an opportunity to put their cases. However, the OECD sees the matter differently. Its contention is that such arguments are always made by professions, but when such issues are resolved, everything works and areas can be regulated. That is the body's experience and it has already implemented similar proposals to those for Ireland in a number of countries. I met the group a number of times last year and earlier this year for the launch. Its argument is that although Ireland is well advanced, too protective a view is taken in some areas.
In respect of deregulation of the electricity industry, is the Taoiseach aware that the limited competition that is beginning to operate is being handled in a manner that is causing huge frustration for potential new entrants to the market? Does he share the fears highlighted in the DKM report and elsewhere about the possibility of energy shortages in the near future and the potential implications that would have for the economy, particularly the technology and data hosting sectors?
There is some concern that there could be some difficulties next winter. It is unlikely, but there is a concern. The Deputy is correct about technology companies. Web farms use an enormous amount of electricity. There are a number of such operations in Ireland and efforts are being made to expand that area. The issue of the amount of electricity they require has not yet been addressed in some areas. The Minister for Public Enterprise and the ESB outlined the increased capital requirements. It is a money argument in terms of the additional capacity the system can take. Work is ongoing in that area and the Minister for Public Enterprise will be in a position to confirm if it is ongoing in other areas.
The Commission for Electricity Regulation will be part of the high level group on regulation. More progress on deregulation at EU level would have been made at the last meeting of the European Council but for the French backing down on it. I do not see that as a difficulty for us. We can proceed with preparatory work and legislative measures. Although there is a problem with France, there is a necessity for us to proceed with electricity deregulation as quickly as possible because that will introduce more competition and provide greater capital input.
Will there will be power cuts next winter because of under capacity?
The Minister for Public Enterprise has indicated to the House that if remedial work is not undertaken on some aspects over the summer months and if no capital investment is made, difficulties will arise. The ESB is acting on that basis. Similar concerns arose last year and there were some difficulties but thankfully not many. Significant investment will be required now and for a number of years. The web farms and related technology use an enormous multiple of even the consumption used by some hi-tech firms. We must increase capacity to be able to deal with that.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree with the OECD's recommendation of a further gallop in the privatisation of electricity and gas? Does he believe the disastrous privatisation of Telecom Éireann should be replicated in the ESB where people would be conned by the Government into substantial losses, where the atomisation of an asset belonging to the people would take place and where there would be a repeat of the current spectacle of multinational vultures and millionaire tax exiles vying with each other to snap up the fixed line business? Is that the Taoiseach's vision of the future of crucial services?
Has the Taoiseach or the Government learned from the give-away of the natural gas resources in the Corrib Field to Enterprise Oil with not a penny in royalties and scarcely any tax accruing after write-offs for expenses? Does the Taoiseach agree that, instead of proceeding as the OECD recommends, it would be better to develop and democratise the public services, including opening the ESB to more influence by the workers, consumers and the public? Does he accept this would be a preferable way to develop our services rather than again throwing them into the den of the multinational companies, the financial conglomerates and so on?
Whatever happens in the ESB or any other State company should be done in conjunction with the workers, management and trade union representatives. They should work out what they believe to be to the best strategic advantage of their company. The Government would have a role to play in that.
Regulatory reform is important and the Government, Departments and agencies have worked on it over the past years. It is not an issue that can be prepared and executed overnight. The Government is committed to better regulation because we recognise that excessive or poor quality State regulation would be an unnecessary burden on economic and social activity. We recognise that if State regulation is excessive in quantity or poor in quality it will be an unnecessary burden on economic and social activity, as much on the latter as on the former. The approach to regulatory reform adopted by the Government is a pragmatic one and is not driven by any ideology. In its report the OECD clearly points out that there is a difference between deregulation and regulatory reform and the differences and distinctions make a great deal of sense.
Regulatory reform is important because of the contribution it can make in sustaining economic growth and competitiveness. The National Competitiveness Council in its reports of recent years has highlighted the need for such reform which it believes also help to achieve efficiencies in a non-inflationary way. Regulators are now facing a very different set of challenges to those faced in the recent decades. The economic challenges we now face are to do with capacity of the electricity infrastructure, competitiveness, counter-inflationary pressures and economic performance, so a reform of these things is important as is regulatory reform to achieve success in doing that. The OECD report points out, as has the SMI group over the past eight years, we can free up markets, minimise regulatory barriers to business and innovation, promote greater competition to benefit the consumer and simplify the regulatory environment to boost trade and foreign investment. This is not an attempt to simply throw out every rule and regulation there to protect people. If we achieve these things it will only be through agreement, as with most things in life particularly those affecting workers, management and Government. That is what the OECD and the people who have worked on this over the years have emphasised. This will go forward over a fairly prolonged period with some areas being obvious, and Deputy Quinn has already highlighted them. Other areas are also being looked at and still others are more complicated, but the process makes sense.
(Mayo): Would the Taoiseach acknowledge that, in spite of the massive economic growth of recent years, there has been no investment in plant for electricity provision? That is why last year the ESB had to bring in five emergency generators from Chicago, just to keep the home fires burning. What steps are to be taken in view of the seven year run-in period from the time a decision is made to generation and transmission? Is the Taoiseach aware of the DKM report's warning that unless immediate action is taken there is a very real possibility of a flight of digital capital? The websites he mentioned, the data-hosting centres, will not alone be unable to get the power they require, they will leave and go to places where there is a guaranteed source of power.
The Competition Authority is a key instrument in ensuring there are not any anti-competitive practices. Last year Deloitte and Touche reported the authority to be very under-resourced and in need of an immediate increase in its staff level from 29 to 44. The report went to the Department of Finance and I want to know if there has been any response from it regarding the provision of the additional staff.
The Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, is the Minister to answer those lead questions. I will not answer them other than to say I am sure the Deputy will accept that the ESB, with the support of the Minister, has put enormous resources into its capital infrastructure and continues to do so. That has to continue.
I cannot say if the Competition Authority has got all of its staff, though additional people have been recruited. On the issue of the websites, the webfarms as they are known, the phenomenon is a new one and the ESB is endeavouring to cope as best it can. We can deal with a certain amount of them, but perhaps it would not be desirable if the country was full of them because they are not big employers. However, they are important as part of the industry.
(Mayo): They are a huge demand on electricity.
They are, but there are many reasons they have come to this country. We have some of the most advanced legislation since last year and many other facilities, which suits them. Technology companies will continue to come here. One can have a certain number of webfarms. The ESB can cope with the extension of growth in the economy, but no one, including the ESB, could deal with a huge number of webfarms. There is also a location issue. The ESB has done its best to deal with them to date and there have not been any disappointments. The ESB is conscious in its plans and surveys for the next seven years of being able to deal with these issues, but it will require an enormous amount of investment. It has grown by 10% every year for the past seven or eight years. This has not happened in many electricity companies in Europe, let alone anywhere else. The ESB is doing its utmost to cope with the situation, but more capital investment is desirable and necessary.
As regards the promise in the Taoiseach's statement regarding a national policy statement on regulatory reform, when will it become available for debate and discussion in the House or nationally? The Taoiseach said in the same statement on 25 April that the Tánaiste had asked the Competition Authority to undertake a review of the legislation covering pharmacies. When will this review be completed? Will a decision be made known about the liberalisation of the regulations preventing proper competition among existing chemist shops and also restricting other European nationals from coming here and providing a service which, in some cases, we cannot obtain ourselves?
As regards the second question, the review of the health community pharmacy contract arrangements which the Government awarded to general medical services is ongoing. However, the Tánaiste has asked for it to be accelerated, which means that it will not be too long before it is completed. Work has been done on this matter before. I do not have a date, but I understand it will be completed fairly soon.
As regards the recommendations which will be put together in a national paper on the issue, the high level group will draft it as soon as it starts to meet. It will be its first job under its terms of reference. The group working on the matter for the past few years would have views on how it should be done. It will not take long to put together a national paper. There are 14 different bodies – seven Departments, the Office of the Attorney General, Forfás, the Competition Authority, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation, the Commission on Electricity Regulation and the Commission on Aviation Regulation. They will all have an input into it. I have met a number of times most of the group which worked on the priorities in recent years with the OECD. It is clear about the national paper. I hope the position paper will be prepared and circulated during the summer.
I think I heard the Taoiseach correctly when he said the OECD was not ideologically driven. Today's editorial in The Irish Times suggests that the OECD normally takes a pro-market line. That would be the view of many. I assume the Taoiseach agrees with the OECD's recommendation to shift the focus away from tax on human labour to a tax on the consumption of finite energy and resources. I wager the Government will not do anything to reform taxation along those lines, notwithstanding promises that it will be tackled in the next budget. It will be interesting to see what action is taken.
The Taoiseach mentioned deregulation and increased competition, and the OECD recommends market liberalisation for electricity and gas consumers by 2005 or sooner. Does he accept that the limited work done by the ESB on energy demand control will be totally undone by deregulation of the energy sector? That sector has one objective – to sell as much energy as it is possible to generate. Does the Taoiseach accept that energy conservation is not being properly tackled by the Government because taxation is not being reformed, and because there has not been a replacement of the energy conservation measures taken by the ESB when the energy sector was fully regulated?
I did not say the OECD was not ideologically driven. I said that the Government did not take an ideological view on whether to implement regulatory reform. There is a difference between that and the views of the OECD. On taxation, it is better to see what happens—
Will anything happen?
The Deputy has asked this before. There should be a shift away, and this is likely to happen. Moving in that direction will be beneficial. There have been many inventions around the world and a move in the right direction will see increased benefits in energy conservation, along the lines Deputy Sargent has suggested. The Deputy has made similar points over several years but modern research has shown that a reformed tax base can help to efficiently conserve energy in ways that are not damaging to the world economy. That is the way the world will go. How quickly it will move in that direction is another issue.
It appears to be a slow process, if the example of the bigger economies is taken. However, the age of buying out people with ideas, and attempting to knock those people off course, is gone. Energy conservation is now big business. I heard recently that if a particular company got its way, it could take 2,000 cars off the road—
The Taoiseach believes advertisements.
There are good conservation measures, but they will not be implemented overnight. Even the multinational companies driving this process believe it will take five to ten years for these measures to take effect.
On the issue of electricity, the Competition Authority, the National Competitiveness Council and the ESB regulator are all determined to increase efficiency and help the environment. That is their position and I agree with the strong case they make.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the capacity of refineries in Europe is at its limit and that there is a danger of a shortage of refined petroleum product internationally? Will he tell the House what measures the Government is contemplating, in the event of the sale of the State oil refinery in Whitegate, to regulate the oil industry to ensure fair play for customers of the INPC?
The Deputy will be aware that discussions are at an advanced stage and there is some optimism that they will be concluded in the coming weeks. We will be obliged to introduce legislation – the relevant Bill is quite short – to deal with this issue immediately after the conclusion of the negotiations. The legislation will be forthcoming only if the negotiations are successful and, as already stated, there are grounds for optimism that this will be the case.
Will regulations be introduced?
We will have to introduce legislation.
Yes, but will regulations be introduced?
Perhaps.
The penultimate recommendation in the OECD report advocates the establishment of a high level committee to protect the regulatory system, while the final recommendation advises strengthening the accountability of regulators through overview by parliamentary committee. I stand open to correction, but I understood the Taoiseach's earlier reply to mean the assistant secretary level committee in his Department is aimed at developing policy for the national platform in relation to regulation. The recommendations to which I refer call for something different. Is the Taoiseach in favour of establishing a single regulatory authority that would combine the functions of the telecommunications regulator, the regulator who will be appointed in respect of the energy sector and the regulators in any other sectors that may move from State monopoly ownership into a regulatory system? Given that resources are limited and that there is a need for consistency in the application, streamlining and integration of legislation, and given the size of the Irish market and the economy, does the Taoiseach agree there is a compelling argument in favour of the establishment of a well-resourced regulatory commission consisting of more than just one wise person upon whom all responsibility will devolve in the first instance?
Does the Taoiseach agree that, as his colleague and friend, the former Attorney General and current EU Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, stated in a speech to a law gathering, the demographic deficit of accountability that has opened up with the transfer of responsibility for State owned companies, such as those in the telecommunications, energy and other sectors, into a competitive market system, has removed any form of parliamentary accountability on the floor of this House in respect of the role of the regulator? Will he outline the precise intention of the Government in this regard, because this is not made clear either in his statement on 25 April or in his initial reply to these questions? What is the Government's attitude to the establishment of an office of regulator, which would combine functions, pool resources and provide for consistency of interpretation and rulings? In what way does the Taoiseach believe that office of regulator should be accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas? He will recall there was an occasion on which the telecommunications regulator refused to come before a committee of the House on the grounds that the legislation did not require her to so do.
The Deputy raised a number of points. First, the objective of the high level group on regulation – which will work only on regulatory reform – will be to provide a cross-agency mechanism to examine the findings of the OECD's report, to consider existing and emerging implementation plans, to report to the Government and to follow the progress that is being made over a period. The main issues, of which there are three of note, are consideration of options for a model of regulatory impact analysis in the public service; availing of the composition of the group to identify inhibitions to the development of a coherent cross-sectoral system of regulatory management; and consideration of institutional and policy responses to the recommendations. Membership of the high level group will include the various regulators – the telecommunications regulator, the electricity regulator and the aviation regulator.
In my statement on 24 April and in my initial reply today, I indicated that I had written to the chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on SMI to ask it to study the report and to deal with this issue so that, as the national statement on regulatory reform is brought forward along with other issues, a report would be made to a committee of this House.
On the third point regarding the question asked by the now Commissioner and then Attorney General of who regulates the regulators, while the issue with which we were dealing at the time has been resolved, any regulator should be answerable to a committee of the House. It does not make sense to remove functions from State agencies, boards or management and give them to a person who is not answerable to the House. The Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, had to deal with the issue to which I referred, and the point made by the regulator in that instance was that the legislation did not require regulators to report to the House. I believe they should.
On the final point about whether all the regulators should be amalgamated into one regulator's office, while I do not deal directly with this issue, I understand that is not something which has merit at this stage. Regulators are new to the system and different ones deal with different areas. While I presume the format of the legislation establishing them is similar, having them work together in a regulation office is not seen as the way to proceed because they deal with different industries, whatever roles they may have in future. The point made by Commissioner Byrne at the time was that Parliament was giving away its powers which were tied down in Gas Acts, ESB Acts and other legislation and that the people to whom those powers were being given were not answerable to Parliament and were independent of Ministers and Departments. I understand the electricity and gas regulators will have to answer to committees of the House and that should at least resolve the problem in those cases.
Surely the Taoiseach is not suggesting the Strategic Management Committee is the body to which the regulators would be accountable as set out in recommendation No. 9 of the OECD report. Does he agree a select committee of the House, either the Committee of Public Accounts or a committee of that nature established on a proper statutory basis to be clearly seen as the body to which all regulators, either individually or collectively depending on whether a single body is established, should report? The Taoiseach's reply does not deal with that. If I am correct in understanding what he said, he merely asked the committee chaired by Deputy Roche to examine the OECD report and not to position itself to be the committee to which the regulators would be accountable, which is a different matter altogether.
We are not talking about a regulator's committee but about a high level committee on regulatory reform which will deal with the implementation of the OECD report. The committee to which the Deputy referred, which began its work only a short while ago, has taken an interest on behalf of the House in the strategic management initiative. Regulators, whether they deal with the gas, electricity or telecommunications industries, have a separate role and function and should report to the relevant committee which deals with their areas, all of which come under the Department of Public Enterprise.
In light of the accepted difficulties with current and future electricity supply, is the Taoiseach satisfied deregulation has been allowed to create much alternative energy? Only 50 MW are available through wind and other alternative energy generation whereas, in Denmark, 2,000 MW are available and the Danes expect by 2010 to generate half their supply using alternative energy. Is the Taoiseach also satisfied that enough support is being given by regulation to the production of electricity through biomass? This is a major and important issue in my area and other areas along the Border.
One of the benefits of having an electricity regulator is flexibility. This benefit is already being felt in the area of wind power.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that the OECD recommendation that electricity generation capacity should be given over to private interests is irresponsible in environmental terms? Is he aware that many of the companies which would want to generate electricity would do so through waste to energy systems, in other words incineration? This form of generating electricity is not only an incentive to continue waste mountains in the interest of creating more profit for the operators, it will also result in environmental pollution. Will the Taoiseach state his opposition to this trend, in view of the need to reduce greenhouse gases? The thrust of the OECD recommendations with regard to greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland is quite irresponsible. Is the Taoiseach aware that in other surveys the OECD has argued that Ireland should trade the right to use the emission capacity of other countries instead of going in the direction of cutting down waste? Does he agree that we should be going in the direction of environmental protection? Does he also agree with the alternative motion proposed today at the Coillte Teoranta AGM that the annual broadleaf planting rate should be extended from 6% to 50%, according to the Heritage Council's recommendations, in order to begin to address the problem of greenhouse gases?
Given that it is engaged in selling all remaining State companies as quickly as possible, it is difficult to believe the Taoiseach when he says the Government is not ideologically driven. The Green Party is driven by the principles of sustainability and social equity. Does the Taoiseach agree that ecological tax reform has already been successfully put in place in many Scandinavian countries and throughout the world and does not require an agreed plan whereby every country would introduce such tax reform simultaneously? It is possible for a country to do so unilaterally and remain competitive at the same time. The ESRI has recommended this. When will the Government put this change into effect rather than producing rhetoric and press statements saying it will happen in the future?
How does the Taoiseach answer the argument from Éircom and the ESB that there is no deregulation but that the Government is merely telling these companies they must sell out to millionaires in order to make these millionaires even more wealthy? How does he answer the argument that private companies are selling electricity to their customers cheaper than the ESB can sell it and that infrastructure put in place by the taxpayer is being sold in order to make people even richer than they already are? Éircom and the ESB are making these claims and have been put in a position where they are unable to compete. Will the same thing happen with mobile phone licences? Will wealthy people be allowed to buy something provided by the taxpayer?
The Government has been and continues to be supportive of investment in the forestry industry. It is particularly supportive of the planting of broadleaf trees. There is already private investment in wind energy. Most of the wind energy capacity has been produced by private companies, an area into which the ESB will expand. The board has already done its own research on it and been involved in the County Donegal wind energy project. I am sure it will continue to invest in wind energy if it makes sense to do so. As regards Deputy Sargent's point, Denmark is a good example of how it works.
Sweden, as well.
Yes, but Denmark is probably seen as the model in Europe. Ecological tax reform will be developed here and I will support it. We do not have to change our entire tax system overnight in order to support it but we will see advances being made.
No date?
No date. As regards deregulation, we will be pinned on some dates in that area because in future there will be decisions on European issues concerning it. While I know the Deputy is asking me a question about the deregulation argument, rather than just stating a fact, enormous advances have occurred in the telecoms market because we have moved on deregulation. That is what opened up the market to huge advances that have taken place. People say that where capital investment is concerned people are making money and I know there are large players in this market that would not otherwise have been there. However, the decision to bring forward deregulation earlier than the planned date, is what has driven the market successfully. International market fluctuations affect these issues but deregulation has been helpful.
As regards the ESB, it is not just a question of the taxpayers but of the entire staff who should have a new relationship with their own company and see rewards from it. I am totally in favour of that. I do not see why ESB workers should not have a chance for advancement in the modernisation and capitalisation of their company. We now have a regulator for the electricity industry which will attract private investment under a changed structure. It will be done by passing legislation in this House and whatever happens in the negotiations with the workers, I hope there will be a stake in it for the public as well. It will be a good day for such companies.