Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27099/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Regulatory Reform.
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress to date made by the quality customer service working group within his Department established under the strategic management initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27100/02]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date by the high-level group on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1247/03]
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the progress which has been made in implementing the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2417/03]
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation to date of the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3281/03]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress to date in regard to the consultation on better regulation; when it is expected that the promised White Paper on Regulation will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3389/03]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:8 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the extent to which his Department has identified infrastructural deficiencies which may impede delivery of targets set in the strategic management initiative; the current assessment of progress to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3445/03]
Enda Kenny
Question:9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when the interdepartmental group implementing the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform will next meet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4278/03]
Denis Naughten
Question:10 Mr. Naughten asked the Taoiseach the actions which his Department is taking to implement the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5297/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive, together.
The public service modernisation programme is co-ordinated by the implementation group of Secretaries General, chaired by the Secretary General of my Department. The different strands of the modernisation programme are overseen by sub-groups of the implementation group, including the high-level group on regulation and the quality customer service working group, both of which also operate under the aegis of my Department.
As I informed the House in my reply of 26 November 2002, the high-level group on regulation has made considerable progress since its establishment in May 2001, following publication of the OECD review on regulatory reform in Ireland. The group has met 15 times to date and reported to Government on its progress in November 2002. The report, "Better Regulation", is available on my Department's website. The next meeting of the high-level group will take place on 20 March.
The group has focused on two areas in particular. First, it has begun the process of framing a national policy statement on better regulation through the publication of the public consultation document, "Towards Better Regulation". The consultation document was designed to highlight the key issues that are likely to feature in the national policy statement and to promote public debate and awareness in relation to better regulation.
The consultation document sets out the key questions we need to address in considering why we regulate, what we need to regulate and new approaches to governance in a global economy. It is important to emphasise that this process is not about resolving micro-level regulatory issues or specific market problems. Rather, it is about giving us a set of core principles to guide future regulation and policy-making.
The consultation process was widely publicised in the media, through Government websites, seminars and presentations. Approximately 4,000 copies of the consultation document were distributed and 89 submissions were received from a wide variety of interested parties. A full list of submissions is available on my Department's website.
To inform the subsequent formulation of the national policy statement, these submissions have been studied and analysed. My Department has recently published a booklet containing two papers, the first of which summarises the submissions received and the second offers an independent analysis and commentary on the submissions by an independent economist. More than 1,000 booklets have been sent to interested parties and copies have been placed in the Oireachtas Library. A drafting group composed of senior officials from key Departments held its first meeting at the end of January to commence preparation of a draft national policy statement. While a specific date for publication has not been set, it is anticipated that the draft text of the statement will be submitted to the Government in early summer with a view to publication some weeks later.
The second priority of the high level group has been to develop a system of regulatory impact analysis as recommended by the OECD in its report. RIA is a policy tool designed to identify and quantify, where possible, the impact of new and existing regulations. A working group of officials has been developing a suitable model for the Irish context. The group has recommended piloting the model in a small number of volunteer Departments and the preparation of detailed guidance material and supports. It has also recommended the devising and delivery of a programme of awareness and training to inform civil servants and other interested parties about RIA. Steps are being taken to implement these recommendations. The publication of a White Paper on regulation in 2003 and the introduction of RIA across Government Departments are two of the commitments on regulatory reform made in the proposed social partnership agreement Sustaining Progress. Significant progress has been made in the area of better regulation since the establishment of the high level group last year and I look forward to a continuation of this trend in the coming years.
The quality customer service working group was established in 1999 to oversee the development of the quality customer service initiative. The working group is chaired by Mr. Frank Daly, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, and includes officials from Departments and offices as well as representatives of trade union, business, consumer and equality interests. A number of sub-groups have been established to address specific aspects of customer service. The group continues to develop policies to ensure improvements in the level of service the public receives from the Civil Service. The group has published 12 principles of quality customer service for customers of the public service and established the QCS officers network to support the work of those directly involved in promoting and delivering the QCS agenda in individual Departments. In consultation with the Equality Authority, it published a support pack on the equality and diversity aspects of quality customer service and commissioned an independent evaluation of the customer action plans produced by Departments and offices. Lansdowne Market Research was commissioned to conduct a survey of satisfaction with the level of service received from the Civil Service. A copy of the survey results has been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
The evaluation of action plans and the overall strategic management initiative was carried out by PA Consulting. It concluded that considerable improvements have been achieved in the level of customer service provided by the Civil Service. The survey by Lansdowne Market Research found that there was a very high level of satisfaction with the Civil Service generally, with 79% of the public being very or fairly satisfied with the level of service received. A range of recommendations for further improvement were made on foot of these evaluations and the group has drawn up a work programme to implement them.
On 11 December last, I spoke at a major conference on QCS in the Civil Service and asked every Department and office to publish a charter of service standards. This should set out the clear standards of service to which the Department or office is committed. These standards should be established following consultation with customers and staff and the achievement of the standards should be evaluated and reported on in annual reports. This charter initiative builds on the achievements of the QCS initiative to date and will reinforce the efforts Departments and offices are already making. The QCS working group is currently preparing detailed guidelines and supports to assist Departments in implementing the initiative.
While the improvements in the level of customer service depend ultimately on the commitment of management and staff of each Department and office, the QCS working group has helped to deliver significant improvements over the last few years. Its support for the roll-out of customer charters and the remainder of its work programme will ensure many further improvements.
In answer to Deputy Durkan's question about delivery of targets set in the strategic management initiative, the evaluation carried out by PA Consulting made a series of recommendations to ensure its full implementation. In response to the evaluation, the implementation group of secretaries general is preparing a new vision, strategy and action plan for the modernisation of the Civil Service. The recommendations set out in the evaluation with regard to specific aspects of SMI formed part of the negotiations on modernisation of the Civil Service in the context of the implementation of the benchmarking report. The measures agreed in these negotiations will significantly advance the reform process. The issues raised in the evaluation are also being addressed by the relevant sub-groups of the implementation body.
Much progress has been made on the better regulation and quality customer service initiatives as part of the overall public service modernisation programme. I look forward to substantial further progress in these projects and other strands of the modernisation programme during the lifetime of this Government. I expect them to further the development of partnership in the Civil Service.
I thank the Taoiseach for his lengthy reply which I will read two or three times in order to absorb all of the information contained in it.
The OECD report published in April 2001 advocated changes to legislation relating to public houses, pharmacies and gas and electricity supply, while calling for more accountability for regulators. Does the Taoiseach accept that the Government's inability to deal with the problems highlighted in the report is contributing to Ireland's lack of competitiveness and a high rate of inflation? Is the Taoiseach concerned that two years after the publication of the report, Ireland has slipped from 11th to 24th place in the world competitiveness ranking? We read yesterday that the price of electricity is to rise by 9%, which is almost twice the rate of inflation, while ESB bills have increased steeply by 13%. The deregulation of the gas and energy sectors which was recommended by the OECD has been ineffective in that consumers and businesses are paying more as a result.
Is the Taoiseach concerned that several prospective service providers have withdrawn from this market because of the pace and nature of deregulation? The result is that energy shortages are a real possibility. A number of weeks ago, our entire electricity capacity came close to being over extended and this could do serious damage to our reputation as a State capable of accommodating industrial expansion. Is the Government focused on attracting market entrants to ensure that we have adequate capacity in the electricity generation sector?
Bord Gáis and the ESB are undertaking substantial capital investment programmes to avoid shortages and to ensure they do not encounter difficulties in the future. The latest information indicates that the capacity concerns of a few years ago should prove unfounded. There are some problems with infrastructural programmes in the north-west and the companies are anxious to get on top of them. The regulator sets their standards.
The OECD made many recommendations when it was brought in to assist us with our analysis of our methods and procedures. During 1999, an enormous amount of work was carried out to discover how we could do things better. The OECD recommended that we construct a rigorous model of regulatory impact analysis to ensure that we examine the potential impact of a regulation before it is introduced. A model is being established with which people will have to comply when designing or considering changes to regulations or when they are proposing deregulation. The model involves examining alternative options, compliance costs, benefits, enforcement and economic and social inputs while consulting with the relevant persons. Instead of discovering five or ten years after changes have been made that there was a better way of doing things, an audit of best practice will be carried out in advance. The detailed and complicated OECD report set out ways in which we could work to find a user-friendly, proportionate and appropriate model for the State.
Deputy Kenny asked about some of the areas being examined such as pharmacy, professional services, liquor licensing. That work is not being carried out by my Departmental group but obviously it has an interest in what happens in these areas. The pharmacy study is looking at the public and interest group consultation, analysing the existing position as a result of the changes made last year when the present regulations were found to be ultra vires.Deputy Kenny is correct about professional services. The Competition Authority is completing work on a study of the professional services. That report is due before Easter. The study deals with eight professional groups – doctors, dentists, vets, optometrists, solicitors, barristers, engineers and architects. It has been shown that competitive practices in the services area and in the professional services area have an effect on inflationary trends.
The group studying liquor licensing has produced three interim reports to date. The first report was published in 2001 and dealt with off-licensing. The second interim report was published last year. The third report on admission and service in licensed premises was published in December. To answer the Deputy's question, there has been a positive effect in helping the competitiveness of the economy through better regulation. It is already bearing fruit in areas which the Competition Authority has examined in recent years. Other countries such as New Zealand and France did a great deal of work of this nature and we are the third country to undertake regulatory analysis. It must be built into the system now. I answered the question about the quality customer service working group in my reply.
Will the Taoiseach not agree with me that the problem here is that these reports and studies have an administrative focus rather than a focus on the economics of regulation and competition? As a result, no action is being taken in an economy that is transparently not competitive. It is losing competitiveness, prices are running very high, inflation is twice the European average and yet we are discussing reports. The Taoiseach refers to the fact that the liquor licensing report is the third report on that area alone. Is it not the case that there are areas of the economy where it is obvious that competition does not apply? Are we not entitled on this side of the House to be sceptical about promises to tackle the question of professional services?
The Government leads on areas like legal services. The previous Attorney General negotiated headline rates for barristers on a per diem basis that are beyond the wildest imagination of the average person. Even if it is the case that the very top lawyers can earn very high rates in normal litigation, surely the Taoiseach agrees with me that this was never contemplated for tribunals that are running for longer than the Second World War? How can there be any basis for confidence that the Government will tackle any of these vested interests? Is it not the case that we are focusing on the bureaucracy of regulation, not the economics of regulation or competition?
Apart from the work of the tribunals, I assure Deputy Rabbitte that the work of the Competition Authority in considering the professional services will produce a very detailed report with detailed recommendations. It will set out what action is necessary in these areas to make them more competitive. Many areas have been regulated to remove restrictive practices over the years, areas where costs had been driven up and people had been stopped moving into those areas. Both this Government and the previous Government have tackled a number of these groups but behind every one of them is large vested interests. I cannot blame them for trying to protect their interests. Steps have been taken to open up the pharmacy service but everyone is aware of the campaign in that area. We are aware of what happened in the taxi industry and in the case of off-licences and liquor licensing. It can be predicted that when the Competition Authority and the Government agencies move to implement the report, there will be plenty of difficulties. There are already examples of people getting ready to fight off the issue. Many of these areas have been regulated and, for example, the Tánaiste is involved in the regulation of the insurance industry. Regulation has resulted in issues of competitiveness, potential savings and better value for money for consumers.
I know what Deputy Rabbitte means when he says there is an administrative focus. The high level group on regulation in my Department deals with the administrative end of the issue. The group is endeavouring to look at existing regulation and to find a model which will avoid restrictive and non-competitive practices. This is the point set out in the reports. The group has examined areas where there is regulation that is too bureaucratic and probably not necessary and in many cases could be more user-friendly and simpler. If it was simpler, more people would have access to the industry in question and there would be more competition. More competition makes an economy more effective.
I cannot disagree with the Deputy on the cost of legal fees. I do not think that a per diem arrangement for fees was ever visualised for the system that we have. Deputy Rabbitte may have some sympathy for me because in September 1997 I did not think all the inquiries I set up in that autumn would still be running in the new millennium. They are still going strong and God knows when they will end. The Minister for Finance has strong views on this matter and I know he has been in consultation with the Attorney General regarding those matters. The per diem rate was based on the view that a barrister would be away from the Law Library for a short period which would take him away from normal business and I can understand the logic of that reasoning. Obviously that is not what is happening now. I can tell the Deputy that the matter is not being ignored but neither is it easy to change.
Will the Taoiseach agree there is a flaw in the regulatory process which deals with energy? With the onset of the energy regulator the incentive to conserve energy that used to exist within the ESB is now giving way to the need to compete in generation of energy. Will the Taoiseach agree that difficulty is compounding the problem when the ESB has taken the opportunity to build a 500 megawatts station in Spain but it cannot do so in Ireland because of the regulatory system? As Deputy Kenny said, we have a crisis in terms of meeting our energy supply demands. Will the Taoiseach agree there is a need to look at the energy sector in particular and recognise that it needs to be within State control for the sake of national interests and national security? We have a problem relating to climate change as well as in energy provision.
Will the Taoiseach ensure that budgetary constraints, for example, the abolition of tax breaks for wind energy construction, are looked at again? Ireland is unique in the European Union in having this competition system which is strangling the potential of the renewable energy sector. We need the energy. A thousand megawatts are ready to go yet competition will only allow 500 megawatts. Will the Taoiseach recognise that while regulatory reform might be appropriate to many areas, it is not appropriate to energy? He should work with his colleagues to reverse the budgetary decisions made which are strangling renewable energy and should recognise that energy regulation is not the most appropriate way to deal with this sector.
I do not want to get into the details of the energy area which come under the Minister with responsibility for public enterprise. I have given my views on the wind energy issue to the Deputy previously. The issue is being examined and an announcement was made yesterday by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dermot Ahern.
That is what I am talking about.
The situation has moved somewhat and the Minister is considering what can be done about capacity, particularly in regard to offshore energy.
There is a significant capacity there.
Our position is to look at it overall and not just from the wind energy aspect. If we could up our capacity we could also export energy. I understand there are private sector people involved who are prepared to invest in both the onshore and offshore areas. The Minister is prepared to consider that. The Deputy suggested that the solution might be to restore tax breaks but large businesses could use their business tax arrangements anyway. The issue is that we do not get cheaper energy. The likelihood is that energy costs will be dearer if we go this way. I am not against that but it must be taken into consideration. The companies engaged in this and the experts who have analysed it say—
Pay for Kyoto and it would be cheaper.
There is an energy cost involved in that which must be balanced and the Minister is engaged in that. I am on the Deputy's side on this issue. Denmark uses 15% renewable energy whereas we have only a small percentage. The cost involved must be considered against the Kyoto fines which will come down the tracks soon. I support the change in culture that is required and the Minister is actively engaged in trying to resolve the difficulty. Since we last addressed the issue during Question Time the Minister for Finance has taken an interest in the matter and has started looking at the trade off between one side and the other.
The budget measures made the matter worse.
A detailed discussion on this issue would be more appropriately addressed to the responsible Minister. General reference in regard to the regulations is appropriate but a detailed discussion is not.
It is precisely on a few of the general principles of the OECD report on regulatory reform that I want to ask the Taoiseach some questions. One of the bottlenecks identified in the report is physical infrastructure. Does the Taoiseach agree that traffic chaos throughout the country is a serious problem for the economy? Is Government policy, which devotes more funding to roads rather than to public transport, compounding the problem along with his Minister for Transport's penchant for privatising existing public services?
A principle laid down as a key factor in the report is that the economic future should be predicated on less labour and more productivity. Does the Taoiseach agree that this poses difficulties for workers if it is carried out to the extent promoted in the report? It is already putting pressure on the lives of workers and their families. A skilled worker in Waterford Glass once put it to me that—
Has the Deputy a question?
Yes. I am making a point. This glass cutter said that when management was driving for more productivity, it wanted to attach brooms to workers' posteriors so they can sweep the floor while looking—
The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information from the Taoiseach, not to impart information.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the principle is not a good one? The liberalisation of public-private services is another principle which was pushed in the report – a code word for privatisation. Does the Taoiseach agree that it is dangerous and counterproductive to have more public services sold into the hands of multinational corporations? These two principles are anti-worker and anti-public sector and should not inform the policy of economic development.
That question might be more appropriate to the Minister responsible.
We can ask the Taoiseach about general principles so the question is appropriate in this context.
As long as it is within the nine questions we are discussing.
It is indeed.
Regulatory impact analysis is a tool that enabled policy makers to identify and quantify, where possible, the impact of proposals and existing regulations on businesses and consumers. It is intended for use in Departments to ensure that our legislative proposals are well founded and do not have unintended costs or other impacts for consumers, businesses or other groups in society.
We are spending €0.5 billion on public transport this year. The rail transport review is in the process of presentation and we have put an enormous amount of money into it. The economy has doubled over the period of a decade and that is bound to create congestion. Regulatory impact analysis is not a means of privatisation. It seeks to look and see if there are ways of doing things better, more efficiently or in a more cost effective manner. Everything has to be looked at that way. It also considers the impact on quality of life. The Minister's review will deal with all of those issues. No doubt the OECD report impinges on how we look at things. How things were done in the past, how they are done now and how they will be done in the future is different.
Any other specific question should be addressed to the Minister. We live in a changed environment. We should not just look at what the OECD says. We must look afresh and should not take an ideological view that competition or regulation automatically mean the privatisation of assets. Neither should we just do things the way we have always done them. We should bring an open and fresh mind to the issue and that is what the Minister is doing in the area of transport.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that regulatory reform and SMI are about the fast, efficient, cost effective, competitive and rapid delivery of services by the public sector to the public and private sectors, and by the private sector to the public sector and the general public? We appear to have slipped down the table in international comparative studies in the past six or seven years. We have gone from a position where we were extremely competitive on the international scene in the delivery of services to one where we are now cluttered up with reports and commissions, each attempting to identify the cause of the bottleneck.
Will the Taoiseach take any initiative to direct the various Ministers with responsibility for this area with a view to achieving more competitiveness? While I will not go into detail, the insurance industry is a classic example of where there is currently a total absence of competition.
I will not get into a discussion about the insurance industry either, but Deputy Durkan is aware of what is going on in that sector.
What is interesting about the competitiveness survey is that we were as high as number three or four and we are still number one across a range of areas. While there are areas where we have dropped dramatically there are other areas where we were never that high, such as in the area of investment in technology. While we are very good in some aspects of technology, in other areas we are not. I continue to drive forward Departments and agencies to improve our position.
We recently made a significant investment in broadband. There was a direct investment of €65 million by the State, which does not reflect the true figure because a number of statutory agencies were involved such as the ESB and CIE. All of the private companies in the communications area are working together under a report prepared by Ira Magaziner to try to get broadband moving. Some 19 areas have been identified and there is a huge amount of work still to be done. We are in a low position in this area which probably affects us most in terms of our competitiveness. However, we can improve our position over a few years. This will require investment not just by the State – we also need to get private companies involved. I am grateful that they have come back into this area having pulled out of it for three or four years because of losses on 3G licences.
Another area that is taken into account is our ability to transport our goods cost-effectively. We are very strong in this, as we are with our tax mechanisms. I agree with Deputy Durkan that we have to continually look at the areas where we are weak and try to maintain the areas in which we are strong to keep ourselves up there in regard to competitiveness. One of the biggest factors affecting our competitiveness is wage rates and, unfortunately, we are very high in that regard.
The Taoiseach admitted that the implementation of regulations is crucially important if we are to address the issue of competitiveness. The use of technology in regard to broadband can help to address this matter. The CSO comes under the remit of the Taoiseach's Department but it has not been reformed in regard to the use of technology. A huge amount of manpower hours in small businesses is tied up trying to fulfil the regulations and paperwork involved with the CSO. No action has yet been taken in that area. We are also awaiting secondary legislation in this House in regard to the services sector, which is one area that has gone completely out of control.
I ask the Deputy to submit a question to the Taoiseach's Department on the CSO for a detailed reply. The Deputy has gone well outside the scope of his own question.
The point I wish to make is that the services sector is one area which is very inefficient and where there is a huge increase in costs, yet the secondary legislation is not being implemented. What is the current position with the insurance industry which is another area where the commitments have not been implemented?
In regard to new regulation and Government decisions, what mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that we do not end up creating new cartels and new inefficiencies? One example of this has been the sale of Eircom where we do not have access to broadband.
A number of the Deputies' colleagues are offering and I would like to facilitate them.
In regard to physical infrastructure and competitiveness, one of the difficulties of importing and exporting products to and from here is that they all have to go through the UK.
I ask the Deputy to give way to his leader, Deputy Kenny.
If we had developed our freight services we could open up Foynes, Waterford and Rosslare, yet that is not happening. This is, again, an issue of regulation. When are we going to see those changes?
Deputy, I would like to facilitate your party leader. I am going to take a few more questions and then we will have the final reply from the Taoiseach. I will call Deputies Kenny, Joe Higgins and Eamon Ryan and I ask them to be brief.
In view of the growing number of sectoral regulators now in place, or planned, what is the proposal to ensure that they are properly accountable, managed and monitored? Does the Taoiseach envisage a stronger role for the Competition Authority in regulating the regulators?
Does the Taoiseach agree that his Government has taken from the report aspects that do not challenge very strong vested interests? How, for example, does he equate his bludgeoning of the taxi drivers into submission—
That question might be more appropriate to the Minister responsible for this area. I call Deputy Eamon Ryan.
It is the principle, a Cheann Chomhairle—
Sorry Deputy, we are running out of time and I would like to facilitate Deputy Eamon Ryan.
The Taoiseach said to Deputy Rabbitte that he is completely helpless in front of the barristers but poor people cannot get justice in this country. What is the difference between the two approaches?
On a broad philosophical question, it appears to me that many of these new regulators are coming from European systems that have regulators promoting competition. Is the Taoiseach concerned that in certain areas we are introducing competition where natural monopolies exist and that we should halt some of the openness that has occurred?
In regard to Deputy Naughten's general point, the whole idea is to look at alternative options, costs and benefits, economic and social inputs and to have consultations with clients in order to avoid getting ourselves into positions where a cartel or monopoly is built up or where areas which one cannot regulate develop.
Deputy Kenny asked a question in regard to regulators and how we will handle this area in future. The point has been raised that there should be standards and that they should deal with everybody, in so far as is possible, in an equal way. We started off with just one or two but now it has become a cumbersome area. When David Byrne was Attorney General he put proposals to Ministers and into the public domain that this issue be dealt with, some of which has happened. They operate in different areas and are independent but there should be an overall umbrella body of standards.
Deputy Joe Higgins asked a question in regard to the monopolies. As he knows, it was the courts that decided on the taxi issue. That is where it was struck down at that time. As I said, the report of the Competition Authority is imminent in regard to the professional services study, which will deal with the areas of doctors, dentists, vets, solicitors, barristers, engineers, architects and so on. It will be a challenge for these groups to implement the recommendations of the report. We will come back to this again in a very short time. It is important that we deal with this area which is why the Government commissioned the Competition Authority report. Inflation figures show an increase in costs in this area. The Tánaiste has already set out what she is doing in regard to the insurance industry and is following through in the implementation of the various issues that she raised last October.
I agree, if I understand the question correctly, that we should not have competition for ideological reasons or deregulate no matter what. There are some areas where that may not be possible and by breaking up monopolies one sometimes creates difficulties. The general European view is that there is no area where that is the case but our view is to tread carefully. At the same time when one treads too carefully one can get a poorer service and not a lot of activity. One has to move on. In Ireland we are open to the criticism that in some cases we have lived with regulation for too long. A number of Ministers are now tackling these problems which are not easy. However, we should not force deregulation in areas where it does not make sense.