Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected total cost in 2004 of the communications unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21432/04]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Bodies.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the projected cost of the communications unit in his Department for 2004; the way in which this compares with 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26388/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The projected total cost of the communications unit for 2004 is €299,921, of which €122,990 is a direct cost to my Department with, on average, €35,386 being borne by the five other Departments that have staff seconded to the unit. The cost for the unit in 2003 was €288,737.
The unit provides a media information service to Ministers and their Departments. It furnishes news updates and transcripts, which ensure Departments are kept informed in a fast and efficient manner of relevant news developments. Departments are able to provide a better service to the public this way.
The communications unit operates 18 hours a day based on a flexible rota of three working shifts. The unit is staffed by six established civil servants, five of whom are seconded from other Departments. The work of the unit means that Departments have greatly reduced their use of external companies and ensures they no longer duplicate work such as transcripts and tapes. The unit is estimated to save Departments in excess of €200,000 per annum.
If all that is being collected are newspaper cuttings and relevant current affairs information, why is it not possible to place the information in the Oireachtas Library daily so that everybody can access it?
Did the communications unit, for example, monitor the information given by an officer from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs yesterday? I heard the officer give that information and am glad the Minister, his driver and the tourists involved will be safe and well. However, that information was clearly incorrect. During the discussion on the radio about the accident, I received a text message from somebody in Killarney informing me that the car had been burned out. Did the communications unit monitor the radio report? It may be that the officer in question was not given the relevant information. However, if the unit works 18 hours a day, the information it provides should be correct. If it is only transcripts and newspaper cuttings that are available, why can they not be placed in the Oireachtas Library so that Members from all parties can access the same information as is supplied to Departments and Ministers?
I do not think the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs issued a statement yesterday. The only statements were media reports.
An officer from the Department was on the radio commenting on the accident.
The only news I heard was what was on the headlines and the report that the car was burned out. I did not hear any more on it.
In the normal course of events, the unit merely reports the headlines of the main national news, the larger Dublin local news stations, Independent Network News, INN, which is broadcast throughout the country, and the morning newspapers. It merely provides a list of what is in the news. The newspapers are in the Oireachtas Library. The unit's report is merely a list and comes without comment. It is purely a list of what has been put out by the media. We have shown copies of the report to people around the House several times and people have seen them around. There is nothing extraordinary about them. They consist of simple data prepared by six civil servants. The Deputy would not be any more informed by them than he would by his text machine.
Do they know they work for a socialist? If that is the Taoiseach's business, he could surely ensure the information is dispensed so the rest of us can know what is going on.
Democratic centralism.
Will the Taoiseach confirm my understanding that political appointees benefit from the same pay rises as Civil Service colleagues, for example, benchmarking and national wage agreements? Is that the case? Will he indicate, from the figures he provided, how many special advisers or programme managers have been employed since the general election of 2002? Is there a code of practice in place with regard to divulging who has been employed by, the Taoiseach and Cabinet members as special advisers? I appreciate the Taoiseach is always quite open——
This question refers specifically to the communications unit.
I appreciate the Taoiseach is always quite open about the communications unit and advisers. Is there a code of practice in place that is known to other Cabinet members when they are asked questions of a similar nature about the communications unit or their position with regard to advisers? There has been some reluctance, certainly on the Tánaiste's part, to divulge information, which would have been seen as straightforward——
The question refers specifically to the communications unit in the Taoiseach's Department.
Is there a code of practice in place for all Cabinet members in that regard?
If I may take the next question, I can answer the Deputy's question with it.
Departmental Appointments.
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers as appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21433/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the role and duties of persons appointed by him as special or political advisers; the total cost in terms of payroll and expenses arising from these appointments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23379/04]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed by him; the total cost of these appointments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24147/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the special political advisers appointed by him; the cost of these appointments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26389/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, together.
The role of the advisers is to keep me informed on a wide range of issues, including business, financial, economic, political, administrative and media matters. Under the direction of the programme manager, their primary function is to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for Government.
Each of the advisers liaises with a number of Departments and acts as a point of contact in my office for Ministers and their advisers. My advisers attend meetings of Cabinet committees and cross-departmental teams relevant to their responsibilities. They also liaise, on my behalf, with organisations and interest groups outside of Government.
In addition, a number of my advisers have specific responsibilities regarding speech drafting. My programme manager meets other ministerial advisers on a weekly basis. He monitors and reports to me on the programme for Government. The current annual salaries of my special advisers in total is €858,846. The total cost of expenses from June 2002 to end October is €10,788.70.
In reply to Deputy Sargent, they are mainly paid rates, which are tied to Civil Service rates and benchmarking also applies. The numbers have not changed, other than the filling of one vacancy. That position was for an adviser with responsibility for the co-ordination of Ministers of State. One adviser deals with Ministers of State and there was a vacancy for this position, which was filled in the past month. They are obliged to give information in answer to questions from any other Minister. Any of the advisers or for that matter civil servants, but particularly advisers who are outside of the Civil Service quota, have to answer parliamentary questions.
The Standards in Public Office Commission is responsible for policing the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. The special advisers have obligations under those Acts, as do I. It is my duty to make sure they complete certain forms and include all relevant information. I am required to lay these documents before the Houses of the Oireachtas in addition to copies of their contracts, statements of relationships and their qualifications for the posts. I am also required to lay before the Houses copies of their declarations of interests. I have complied fully with these obligations.
Does any politically appointed adviser in the Taoiseach's Department deal with e-Government? This matter was the responsibility of the former Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, but I am not sure what is the position at present.
Are the guidelines that bind politically appointed advisers in terms of their duties published? Have any changes been recently introduced to these guidelines? Earlier this year or late last year it emerged that a prominent political adviser to the Taoiseach was at least associated with directions to a Minister about allocation of public funding for facilities down south. Has that situation changed or are these political advisers still entitled to give advice that might be accepted or rejected by a Minister as the case may be?
Who is in charge of e-Government? Are these guidelines available on the website or are they published? Have any changes to them been introduced recently and has the practice of politically appointed advisers more or less dictating what Ministers should do come to an end? In other words is the "Yes Minister" period over?
Mr. John Lahart, adviser to the Minister of State and Chief Whip, Deputy Kitt, is responsible for e-Cabinet and he is involved in that work.
The conditions under which advisers are covered are included in a number of legislative provisions. Clarification on the role of advisers was sought in the House at the end of last year or the beginning of this year, specifically whether they could be made permanent, the basis on which it could be done and their pensionability. Conditions were written into the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act which effectively mean such people cannot be made permanent. Deputy Kenny will be familiar with the old arrangement whereby persons could be appointed by the Government in the national interest, as they were on a number of occasions. However, that provision has been eliminated and such persons must now re-apply through open competition rather than by any other arrangement. The amendment to the Civil Service Commissioners Act 1956 by the Act to which I referred was made as a result of the issue being raised during Taoiseach's Question Time.
All special advisers must comply with the ethics in public office provisions. That has all been published and the provisions cover both their contracts and any engagements in which they are involved. It is almost the same as for office holders who must also comply with the conditions. All Government advisers have complied with their obligations except one adviser, who is not one of mine and is new to his position, who has yet to complete his form.
Will the Taoiseach inform the House if different rules or yardsticks are applied to fix the salary entitlements of people recruited from the public sector as distinct from those recruited from the private sector to work in the Department of the Taoiseach and throughout the public service? What are the responsibilities of the person recruited to the Department of the Taoiseach on 1 October this year? Why does the total cost for advisers referred to by the Taoiseach appear to be a significant increase on the figure of €750,000, which he gave in answer to this question in February of this year?
What rules, if any, apply to the kind of work that may be engaged in by people exiting the service? Is there a period within which they may not deal with the Department in which they worked? Do any rules apply to recruiting people from sensitive positions outside the public service who might later revert to those positions in possession of a great deal of valuable information about matters pending at the heart of Government and beyond the Department in which they were employed? Are these areas unregulated and does the Taoiseach have any apprehensions about them?
The only change is the most recently filled vacancy, namely, the special adviser with responsibility for co-ordinating work between all the Ministers of State who was appointed in the past month. Other than the Chief Whip, no other Minister of State has an adviser.
The rates of pay total €858,846. Other than benchmarking, there has been no review or alteration of the rates and there has been no other change in personnel. Therefore, there should be no reason for the position to change.
There are two aspects to the conditions of appointment. The Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act applies to special advisers. That covers their positions in the Civil Service and allowed those advisers to remain in office when the appointing Government left office. However, that has now been excluded. It has not been used in the last decade but it had been used in the past. That Act was changed and they cannot do that now.
There are some changes in the proposals about the code of conduct for special advisers. A new Civil Service code of standards and behaviour was approved by the Government earlier this year. Apart from the provisions relating to civil servants and politics, provision has also been made in the code to include its applicability to the posts of Government press secretary, deputy Government press secretary, special advisers and special assistants in Ministers' offices. I cannot recall exactly what the conditions are but I will circulate a note to Deputy Rabbitte on what changes have been made. I believe it dealt with the issue of a gap from the time they can leave to taking up a position in a sensitive area.
With regard to staff coming from Government Departments and from the private sector, the rule of thumb, although it must be agreed with the Department of Finance and is not always adhered to, is that an increase of roughly 10% is given. However, it is a matter to be agreed between the line Minister and the Minister for Finance. That would apply equally in the public sector as it would in the private sector.
I did not appreciate that political advisers were subject to benchmarking. Against whom are they benchmarked? What are the criteria? It is a significant increase in six months.
The Taoiseach said the new appointee is responsible for co-ordinating the Ministers of State. Is this a completely new appointment? What does it mean? Does it mean rounding them up every so often and checking what they are doing? I can understand the need for that but there is an additional cost to the taxpayer. Did this emerge from Inchydoney? What gave rise to it? There have been more solo runs by Ministers of State since the Taoiseach appointed this man than occurred before that. I presume this is a political appointment to try to weld the Ministers of State into some kind of cohesive force or to bring the socialist forces together with the neocons. What is the purpose of this appointment?
Perhaps to round up their brothers and sisters. It is not a new appointment; the position existed already. The Government of which Deputy Rabbitte was a member operated a more communist theory, in that there were lots of people and it employed one for one, as it were. There were 15 or 16 Ministers of State and an adviser for every one of them. It was the "one for everyone in the audience" syndrome. We changed that to having just one for all the Ministers of State. It reduced the numbers which was, perhaps, a more capitalist way of doing it.
The Taoiseach dropped the red flag again.
It was a 24 hour sell out.
I was trying to get from the communist stage to the capitalist stage so I just had one in the middle — it is more socialist.
The person endeavours as best they can to assist all the Ministers of State. It is a political appointment. The person liaises with the Ministers of State and assists them in political areas where they can. It obviously means the individual can only work on certain projects and do certain work with the Ministers of State but they do that to their best ability. A substantial saving is made due to the fact that 15 or 16 people are not involved. It is, perhaps, not the easiest means for one individual to try to move, but these people work on projects for Ministers of State to the best of their abilities. It is cheaper that way.
Does the Taoiseach believe there is a need for more than guidelines to govern circumstances where advisers leave the service of the Government and effectively make use of that period as a lucrative training ground in pursuing a career in the private sector in lobbying, press relations or some other area? Is it satisfactory that we are operating on the basis of what appear to be voluntary guidelines? Will the Taoiseach clarify what he means by guidelines in that regard?
The Taoiseach replied on the code of conduct that obtains in respect of standards in public office etc. As regards the provision of information, he stated that there is an obligation on every member of the Cabinet to be open about the identity of advisers, the amount of money these people earn and so on. Will he indicate whether that is understood by every member of the Cabinet in light of the fact that the Tánaiste appears not to understand it?
That does not arise out of the question.
Will he communicate with the Tánaiste so that she will not make that mistake again?
I am not sure what issue the Deputy is referring to, but under the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Standards in Public Office Act, it is a legal obligation of Ministers to comply with both the contract and the form. Whatever about the issue of the parliamentary question to which, I believe, the Deputy is referring, that is set down in law. On the code of conduct, as I informed Deputy Rabbitte, I will provide a note on the changes that have been made.
In many instances, advisers leave their employment — this has happened in Governments over many years — to take up positions they have been offered. There must, of course, be some control and sensitivity in terms of their returning to such employment. As a result of the vagaries of the political system, the majority of people who are obliged to return to their previous employment do not benefit. Some of them lose rank or are sidelined for some time. It is difficult for these people and they take risks in becoming advisers. I accept that people cannot be allowed to work for the Government and then take with them files and records when they leave to make more lucrative lives for themselves. I think that is covered by the codes. By and large, when these people move on they face a difficulty in finding their feet again in new careers.
It is only a guideline.
It is a code of behaviour that was approved by the Government. People are duty bound to live by that code and not abuse it.
Office of the Chief State Solicitor.
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Nally report on the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor’s office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21436/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress to date with regard to the implementation of the Nally report on the Chief State Solicitor’s office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23380/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor’s office. [28840/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
The recommendations of the Nally report in respect of the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor's office have largely been implemented. Agreement with the unions involved was achieved during 2001. The criminal prosecutions functions undertaken by the Chief State Solicitor's office were transferred to the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions at the end of 2001. A common promotion pool within the two offices for professional and technical promotion posts formed part of the agreement and that is now in operation.
A negotiating process with local State solicitors seeking to agree on the transfer of the service to the DPP is under way. Enabling legislation and appropriate legislative provisions are contained in the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2004, which passed Second Stage in the Dáil on 13 October 2004 and is awaiting Committee Stage.
The Taoiseach answered questions on this matter previously. It is not very exciting stuff. How much work is outsourced from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to private solicitors? What is the nature and extent of that work and is a figure available as to the annual cost to the taxpayer? The Taoiseach will also be aware that last year, the DPP voiced some considerable concerns about the backlog of cases before him, that it could not be cleared and that a period of years might elapse before they would come before the courts. The Taoiseach informed the House last March that there were 17 staff vacancies in the Chief State Solicitor's office consisting of nine professional, five technical and three support staff. Has the Taoiseach an up to date report on whether those positions have been filled or whether vacancies currently exist? If the Taoiseach has the information to hand, will he inform the House on the progress achieved between the offices of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions on the implementation of the recommendations?
Most if not all of the recommendations of the Nally report have now been implemented, with the exception of the negotiations, which hopefully will be concluded shortly with the State Solicitors' Association. Discussions have been taking place and an offer has been made to bring them under the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. A formal offer was made to the local State solicitors last October. The offer dealt with many of the issues raised in the course of negotiations. The association is currently considering the offer and a detailed response is awaited. Informal contacts are continuing in the meantime. This is the last of the Nally report initiatives to be completed.
I am not sure if I have all the figures to hand as regards staffing and the agreement between the CSSO. The study group addressed the issue of greater cohesion in the criminal justice system. Among the recommendations in the report was the transfer of responsibility for the criminal division of the CSSO and the local State solicitor service to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The main features of the recommendation included an increase of staff by 75, including 66 in the professional and technical complement in both solicitors' offices. That agreement has been in place for a number of years. A recruitment campaign commenced the confined competitions for serving contract personnel and staff size acceptance to filling promotional posts. There were other issues to do with IT and work management systems. I do not have information on the number of vacancies but I understand there are not many vacancies now due to a series of interviews. A new recruitment scale for solicitors was implemented to replace the existing lower grade. The scale includes a facility for multiple increments after three and six years' service. Fifty-two additional professional staff were appointed which is a 56% increase over the then levels some time ago, including 12 extra senior posts at principal officer level. Fourteen extra technical staff, a 30% increase on existing levels, and also legal clerks were appointed. These appointments were made some time ago when reforms were being undertaken.
In recent times significant steps have been taken by the Government to ensure that the legal offices of the State have the resources to meet the demands facing them. There has been a significant increase in staffing levels in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor in recent years. The introduction of office-wide IT systems, a new organisational structure, modern library and information systems, strategic planning and training and development programmes has been completed. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor has recruited most of the additional staff approved. The staff complement has averaged approximately 225 over the past year. The office has currently 12 vacancies, one professional post, eight technical posts and three support staff. I do not have the figures for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If a parliamentary question is submitted on the subject I may be able to provide those details.
Is the Chief State Solicitor's office still responsible for the conveyancing of all State property? Is the office involved in the current sale of all State lands under the decentralisation programme and other programmes, such as the Minister for Health andChildren, Deputy Harney's proposed sale of lands attached to various health facilities throughout the State? Is any of this work contracted out?
The Office of Public Works does most of the property transactions. I am sure they received advice on these legal matters from the State Solicitor's office but in other cases the State Solicitor's office will allow Departments use solicitors. I am not sure which way the OPW is doing it or whether it is using its own legal advice. I assume if that is the case it is done through somebody who has been contacted by the State Solicitor's office because one has to go through the State Solicitor's office, even to be recommended another solicitor. I am not certain about that and I do not want to——
Would the Taoiseach come back to me on that?
If the Deputy puts down a question I will ask for the information.
On the transfer of responsibility for those State solicitors outside Dublin, is the Taoiseach saying that no additional legislation is required in that regard? Also, has he any target date for completion of that transfer?
To the best of my knowledge, the enabling legislation allowing for that, the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill passed Second Stage in the Dáil on 13 October and is awaiting Committee Stage. Responsibility will be transferred under the new arrangement when negotiations are complete. The benefit of this is that the Director of Public Prosecutions will have responsibility in the Dublin Metropolitan area and will have equal responsibility for State solicitors throughout the country. The negotiation process with the local State solicitors is currently under way seeking agreement on the transfer to the DPP.
As there is just five minutes remaining and there is one question with four or five Members offering, do Members want to take the question or move on to——
Which one is it, a Cheann Comhairle?
It is the OECD report.
Regulatory Reform.
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21437/04]
Enda Kenny
Question:11 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress 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. [21438/04]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress to date with regard to the implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23381/04]
Trevor Sargent
Question:13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23516/04]
Joe Higgins
Question:14 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress to date in implementing the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform. [24148/04]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:15 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28841/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 15, inclusive, together.
The implementation group of Secretaries General has responsibility for overall co-ordination and promotion of the modernisation programme for the Civil Service. A number of sub-groups oversee the different strands of the modernisation programme, which are taken forward in close collaboration between my Department and the Department of Finance.
The quality customer service working group, chaired by Mr. Frank Daly, Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, promotes improved service to customers. The group includes members from Departments and offices as well as representatives of customers and the social partners.
The main focus of the group in recent times has been the implementation of the customer charter initiative across the Civil Service. Guidance and training has been provided to Departments and offices to help them prepare the charters, and the majority of Departments have now published their charters; the remainder are scheduled to do so shortly.
These charters have been prepared following consultation with customers. Departments are expected to include measurable targets and then report on the achievement of these targets in their annual reports, starting in 2004. This process will ensure that the Civil Service remains focused on customer needs and becomes more accountable for achieving service standards.
The group has also overseen an initiative to identify and showcase examples of excellence across the public service. Following a national competition, 20 projects were selected for their achievements in improving customer service and the quality of administration.
These projects were presented at three national conferences in Dublin, Sligo and Limerick during July. I was pleased to present an excellence award to each of the projects. They then represented Ireland at an EU Quality Conference in Rotterdam.
Other projects undertaken by the working group in the past include the preparation of a paper on the customer service aspects of the decentralisation initiative, which has been circulated to all Departments, and a report on the use of accreditation schemes in the Civil Service. While improvements in the level of customer service will ultimately depend on the commitment of management in each Department, the quality customer service working group has helped to deliver improvements.
With regard to better regulation, which is another strand of the modernisation programme, progress has been achieved since the publication of the OECD report on regulatory reform in 2001. Many of its recommendations related to specific sectoral issues and progress in this regard was recorded in a report published in January 2003. A central element of the Government's response to the OECD report was the formulation of a White Paper last January, which sets out the introduction of regulatory impact analysis, initially on a pilot basis; improvements to our approach to sectoral regulation; a renewed drive to tackle red tape; and greater clarity and accessibility of regulation.
A better regulation group of senior officials has been established to oversee implementation of the White Paper and promote better quality regulation across the public service. To date, the group has focused on better regulation issues, including the enterprise strategy group. It also oversees progress on the ongoing programme of statute law revision which seeks to amend the Statute Book.
As already stated, another key action in the White Paper is the development of a system of regulatory impact analysis as recommended by the OECD. A number of Departments have agreed to pilot the draft RIA model.
Overall, good progress has been achieved in modernising the public service. This is extensively documented in the performance verification process under the Sustaining Progress agreement. The progress reports prepared for the Civil Service performance verification group demonstrate that considerable improvements have been made in the quality and efficiency of services.
As time is short, I will ask only three questions. Do we have too many regulators and would one regulator with real authority, clout and assistance do the job better?
The Taoiseach will be aware of a National Competitiveness Council report in which its chairman, Mr. Burgess, said the single greatest impediment to growth was the issue of costs. In the area of regulation of the furniture business, for instance, what is the Taoiseach's view on recent comments that regulations will be lifted for one company, IKEA, to allow it to come here, whereas they will not be lifted for other companies? Is this fair or legal?
What progress has been made on removing the barrier to foreign educated pharmacists entering the Irish market?
Perhaps some of the Deputy's questions would be better addressed to the line Minister.
They all relate to regulatory reform.
On the issue of a single regulator, two recent reports stated this issue should be looked at and that, rather than appointing new regulators, we should try to give new regulatory roles to existing regulators. It also stated we should look at having a super-regulator and move away from having a host of regulators in different areas. There is sense in this proposal and the issue is being examined. While I do not believe one individual could do everything, it would make sense for one office to do it.
As the Deputy stated, the National Competitiveness Council has also made such a proposal. It has also raised the issues and burdens facing small companies, in particular, as a result of the way in which regulation is made. Since the White Paper was published, an amount of work has been done on this area. The key to the issue is to make regulatory impact analysis work by carrying out a strict examination before one starts a regulatory or legislative processon whether the process is needed, what it is about and what bureaucracy or red tape it will create. I have seen regulatory impact analysis work and it will make an enormous difference. As regards what is already in place, that is perhaps a different area. Regulatory impact analysis is working. It has been done in a number of pilot areas and must be extended. Much work has been done in this area.
The simple answer regarding IKEA is that the matter has to be examined. IKEA's proposal has been around for many years. The only aspect of it that changes is the location, it tends to vary in terms of the part of the country it wishes to locate. The proposal must be examined to see whether we are losing out by not having IKEA stores. Regarding the question of having only one IKEA store, I am not sure that would stand up to scrutiny, which is why there should be closer examination of the issue.
The number of IKEA products being brought into Ireland is enormous. Ballymun is a deserving place, but I have a difficulty, and this is the reason I agreed to regulations limiting the number of stores, in that if an IKEA furniture store is allowed, it will want to open stores selling clothes and other products. I am not sure that, under EU competition policy, that can be regulated. We are examining closely that issue. Good arguments are made about employment and that IKEA products are being brought into the country. IKEA produced a glossy booklet, distributed in most urban areas, that allows people to use its mail order service and many truckers bring in its products every week. The validity of allowing one store only would be extraordinarily difficult to defend. If store size is regulated for one company it must be regulated for every company. Otherwise the decision would be challenged within a month, with the argument put forward that what applies to one company should apply to all. That happened in other countries and it is a difficult issue.
Regarding pharmacists, the Competition Authority is close to completing its study of six or eight professional areas, and that report will be made available. The Department of Health and Children undertook an independent examination of the issue of professional qualifications and I think that work is completed. The Competition Authority indicates that people with qualifications from outside the country are able to enter most of these professional grades here. Already with most professions, including engineering and architects, no debarring mechanisms exist. From my reading of the last draft of the Competition Authority's report, it recommends that it is not compatible to restrict professionals coming from other countries.
In June 2004, when these questions were last raised, I referred to the section of the White Paper on Regulatory Reform that commits Departments and offices to publish draft heads of Bills where feasible and possible. I asked the Taoiseach if the heads of the Health Bill would be published. The record of the House shows that he replied: "The reform process envisaged by the Health Bill is so complex that the draft heads should certainly be produced." However, that has not happened and the Bill was presented to Cabinet today. Will the Taoiseach explain why his recommendation in June was not adhered to and why, despite all these promises, we do not have this level of signalled co-operation?
On the Taoiseach's commitment to minimise red tape and bureaucracy in terms of how it impacts on entrepreneurship, will he indicate to the House how new legislative measures are vetted in their impact on small businesses? The Construction Industry Federation and IBEC claim the recently published Health and Safety Bill is very burdensome in this regard.
The concept of discussion of heads of Bills in Oireachtas committees is a good one because areas can be teased out. Most of the heads in the Health Bill were taken from the reform documents produced since 2001.
The heads of the Health Bill have not been published.
There is nothing new in them and the heads are based around that. Speed and time are the reasons for not debating them at the committee. Where possible, it is better that there is a meaningful discussion about the heads of Bills and I have indicated that to my colleagues. I hope they go before all committees, they certainly go before some. In several cases the heads of Bills published for some time have not been debated in committees, which further delays matters.
The concept of the White Paper, the OECD report and all the work is to inject more rigour into the process of formulating and analysing proposed regulations and the regulatory impact analysis. The process of making regulations in certain cases may take more time but the impact analysis does not apply to all regulations. The idea is that if people must sit down, to examine and think extensively about the burdens and value of regulations and question their effectiveness and their ability to achieve something, half the regulations will not be needed.
I am frequently asked about the Health and Safety Act and what is happening to it. When I introduced it 15 years ago, I never envisaged that we would turn health and safety issues into an industry. After archaeology it must be the fastest growing industry. I was trying to ensure there were rules and guidance to stop the level of accidents happening at the time.
A raft of new regulations needs to be considered now.
Unfortunately, behind this there is a large industry of advisers and specialists, degrees and certificates.
It sounds like Government.
The Government is shrinking. My Department shrank by 4% this year.
The ambulance drivers in Wexford need life jackets now.
Deputy Howlin should allow the Taoiseach to conclude. We have exceeded the time for Taoiseach's Question Time.
What about wellington boots?
I will not argue with Deputy Howlin on this because there is a difference between trying to make something safe and writing a great deal into regulations. While no one wants to see accidents on building sites, farms, in butchers' shops or meat factories where they have traditionally happened, we do not need to insist that every small company must have a health and safety clerk to comply with it. That was not the original idea.