Enda Kenny
Question:1 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. [24232/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Chief State Solicitor’s Office.
The recommendations of the Nally report regarding the re-organisation of the Chief State Solicitor's office have been largely implemented. Agreement with the unions involved was achieved during 2001. The criminal prosecution 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, between the CSSO and the solicitors' division of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, for professional solicitor and technical promotion posts formed part of the agreement and this now operates. A negotiating process with local State solicitors is currently under way seeking to agree on the transfer of the service to the DPP. A review of the current workload of local State solicitors and their expense base is almost completed. Enabling legislation and appropriate legislative provisions are contained in the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Act 2005, which was signed by the President on 9 July 2005.
Last year the Taoiseach informed the House that there were 17 vacancies in the Chief State Solicitor's office of which nine were professional, five were technical and three were support posts. Does he have the information on what posts were filled or are those positions still unfilled?
Perhaps the Taoiseach has information about the amount of work outsourced from the Chief State Solicitor's office to private solicitors. Is there cost involved for the taxpayer and if so, how much is it? If work is to be outsourced is this because of lack of expertise arising from manpower difficulties in the Chief State Solicitor's office?
The CSSO has recruited mostly additional approved staff. The staffing complement has averaged about 225 over the past year. The office currently has 12 vacancies comprising one professional post, eight technical and three support staff posts.
Similarly, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has recruited additional staff, as sanctioned, and currently has a serving staff complement of approximately 170 full time equivalents. I understand there are only one or two vacancies in the DPP's office, which are in the process of being filled. On the question of outsourcing, there is no reason for not contracting out legal work if the CSSO wants to do this. In the recent past it has contracted out some specific cases where the workload involved was beyond the capacity of the office to handle. It was not that it did not possess the technical expertise, but rather it related to the volume of work. The office has made extensive use of counsel, also, in dealing with its day to day case load.
As regards the DPP's office, more prosecution work is outsourced to barristers in private practice than in most other common law jurisdictions. The tendency in other common law jurisdictions is to make greater use of in-house lawyers, but the DPP's office still outsources a large amount of work to private practice.
Does the Taoiseach recall that when he launched the report on the regulatory impact analysis, RIA, in July, he also announced the establishment of a new business regulation group? In the course of that he spoke of the burdens faced by the Irish business community in terms of regulations. Can he outline to the House——
That is not relevant to Question No. 1.
I beg the House's pardon.
As regards Question No. 1, did the Taoiseach see the story in The Irish Times about an extradition warrant for a paedophile, which went missing?
I did not.
I thought it was the type of thing that might stick in his mind, if he had seen it. Will he comment on how it happened——
That matter does not arise out of this question.
——in the context of the efficacy of the Chief State Solicitor's office?
It does not arise out of this question.
We are talking about the implementation of the Nally report for the reorganisation and efficiency-——
If the Deputy has a specific question, it should be addressed to the relevant line Minister. It certainly does not arise out of this question.
The Ceann Comhairle may relax. The Taoiseach is well able to handle it.
The Taoiseach may well be able to handle it, but he may not be out of order any more than the Deputy.
The Ceann Comhairle does not disagree with the Deputy's confidence in the Taoiseach.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the case to which I refer?
That matter does not arise out of this question. This question deals with the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor's office. It is a single question in the name of Deputy Kenny. If Deputies were to raise every case of justice in the country we should be here until midnight.
The whole purpose of the Nally report was to ensure that these organs of the State are functioning to optimum efficiency. I am merely pointing to one case that appears to suggest that they are not functioning as efficiently as we thought, after the implementation of the Nally report. With respect, I suggest this is a perfectly legitimate way to ask the Taoiseach——
The Chair has ruled on the matter. As the Deputy well knows, the question is only specific in so far as it refers to the Taoiseach's responsibility, not that of line Ministers.
Regulatory Reform.
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. [24233/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the input his Department had into the report on the introduction of regulatory impact analysis which he launched on 11 July 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24386/05]
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the OECD Report on Regulatory Reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25212/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 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. [25356/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD Report on Regulatory Reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26558/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, together.
As regards the OECD report, I refer Deputies to previous answers where I have explained that many of its recommendations related to specific sectoral issues. I said the appropriate Ministers with responsibility for those sectoral areas are reporting directly to the House on progressing the OECD recommendations.
I have also explained that one of the key recommendations of the OECD report was the development of a national policy on better regulation. In January 2004, the Government published the White Paper, Regulating Better. The White Paper sets out six core principles of better regulation and a detailed action plan on how these principles will be translated in terms of how we design, implement and review legislation and regulations. Accordingly, it is the White Paper which contains the thrust of our efforts on regulatory reform, rather than the original OECD report.
Progress has been made in a number of key areas set out in the White Paper, including: the establishment of a better regulation group to oversee the implementation of the commitments and action plan arising from the White Paper; greater clarity and accessibility to legislation through a rolling programme of statute law revision; the development and publication last July of guidelines on consultation to assist not only those public servants who may be running consultation processes, but also those parties who may be interested in participating in consultation processes; and the introduction in June this year of regulatory impact analysis, RIA.
Many of our EU partners and the European Commission have had various models of RIA in place for several years. The introduction of RIA in Ireland was a key commitment in the White Paper. We have adopted a model of RIA that has been tailored — following a pilot process — to take account of Ireland's regulatory environment and best practice elsewhere.
RIA is an assessment of the likely effects of a proposed new regulation or regulatory change. It involves a detailed analysis to ascertain whether a proposed new regulation will have the desired impact. It also helps to identify any unintended effects or hidden costs associated with regulation. Impact assessment is widely recognised as an important means of achieving better regulation, by improving the quality of analysis and consultation that takes place before decisions are made.
Following a Government decision on 21 June this year, RIA is now to be applied to all new proposals for primary legislation that involve changes to the regulatory framework and to significant statutory instruments as well as to draft EU directives and significant EU draft regulations when these are published. The latter will contribute to Ireland's negotiating position on proposed EU legislation, by highlighting effects and costs that could have particular implications for the State.
Better regulation is one aspect of the wider public service modernisation programme and my Department has lead responsibility for supporting and progressing implementation of the better regulation agenda. My Department was involved in the development of the Irish model of regulatory impact analysis and chaired the steering group of Departments that piloted the RIA model. The findings of the steering group and the experiences of the pilot process were central to the decision by Government to introduce RIA across all Departments and Government offices from 21 June this year. There are many benefits to RIA and these are clearly set out in the report on the introduction of regulatory impact analysis, published by my Department in July.
While responsibility for conducting a regulatory impact analysis falls to the relevant Departments considering the introduction of legislation, or which may have lead responsibility in specific sectoral areas, my Department is providing support and advice in this regard.
I am not sure what that lengthy reply means. In 1991 the Competition Authority was established, in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency, in 2001, the Commission for Aviation Regulation and in 2002, ComReg. In 1989 the Health and Safety Authority was set up and in 2001, the Health Insurance Authority. In that year, also, we had the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE, and in 2004 the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority, IAASA. The Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority, IFSRA, was established in 2003 and the National Taxi Regulator in 2004.
That is a complete set of small empires that have an important duty to perform. I understand that. Will the Taoiseach not agree that there is a case for a single really powerful regulator, which could benefit from economies of scale as well as the pooling of knowledge and expertise and which employs a more focused degree of accountability to all of these areas that must surely benefit consumers in every stratum of society? In its report, the OECD identified two specific areas, telecoms and energy, as being of particular concern. Does the Taoiseach agree that progress in both areas has been dismal and that, as a consequence, the nation is losing in so far as regulation is concerned?
If I can separate the issues, the legislation listed by the Deputy covers a broad range of specialist areas. IFSRA was established for a particular reason in the financial area, likewise the Health and Safety Authority and many of the other regulatory bodies.
I will deal first with regulatory impact analysis before coming to the issue of a super-regulator. Under regulatory impact analysis, before introducing legislation, statutory instruments or new powers the issue is examined to find out if there is another simpler way of dealing with it, whether more bureaucracy is needed or if legislation is already in place which takes the issue into account so that we end up with fewer rules and less regulation. There are areas, including health and safety, for which one must have regulators. For example, IFSRA is needed for financial reasons and prudential control of the country. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure legislation is as simple as possible. The solution to every problem is not more regulation and legislation. At some of the meetings and discussions on this issue I attended people asked if this type of analysis did not always take place. It does not because over the years people sat down and decided to regulate to solve problems. Later on, however, nobody implemented much of the regulation. The aim is at least to have a process in place.
The Deputy's point on having a super-regulator is different and has some merit. The recommendations to merge a number of regulators and create a larger, multi-sector regulatory body was made by the enterprise strategy group last year in its report, Ahead of the Curve. The recommendation was considered by the better regulation group and discussed at some length under the chairmanship of my Department which is tasked with implementing the White Paper.
The White Paper recognises the value of ongoing assessment of the possibilities of rationalising the present system. My Department accepts that strengthening ties between the regulators and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and the Competition Authority would be beneficial. Some cost savings would arise from the super-regulator approach by having shared facilities and expertise but, according to officials of my Department, given the disparate nature of some of the functions that independent regulators deal with, from licensing to travel agents to the building of new power stations, the extent of the potential synergies may be over-stated. The matter should still be examined. The question of the public and political accountability of any super-regulator would also need careful consideration.
The debate about the number of regulators sometimes misses the point because the real issue is the quality of the decision making by regulators. Are we getting better outcomes in key regulated areas? This will be the debate in the future. Is it better to have experts acting as regulators and, if not, why not? Are the regulators fulfilling their functions both in respect of the players in the market and consumers? Do regulators have sufficient powers and clear mandates? Can we strengthen their powers of sanction? Can we limit recourse to the courts by parties wishing to frustrate regulatory decisions made in the public interest?
The view of my Department is that answering these questions is a difficult task and the solutions are likely to go beyond the simple issue of the number of regulators. After all, I do not want to be here in a couple of years addressing the problem of overly powerful super-regulators or, for that matter, anybody else.
We do not want the Taoiseach to be here in two years, or two months for that matter.
Maybe the Deputy's party will be on this side of the House.
We will certainly give it a try.
Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin together.
Sinn Féin would have a different form of regulation.
It would not be big into regulators.
Time will tell.
It worries me that the solution in almost every area is to get a regulator. This brings up a mass of issues. It is worth posing questions about the quality of decisions. Things have become more complex. Is the quality of decisions much greater than it used to be? The issue is complex and I accept that in some areas there is a huge amount of data, presentations and issues.
We cannot have a regulator in every single area and will have to try to give regulators multiple roles. Even if the population in 15 years is 5 million, it will not be huge. Do we need to end up with 30 or 40 regulators? I doubt it so there is merit in the super-regulator idea. I assure Deputy Kenny that the issue is being addressed by the better regulation group.
Although I inadvertently gave the Taoiseach prior notice of one of my two supplementary questions, he did not answer the question I posed earlier. I apologised to the Chair out of turn. I will put the question again. Does the Taoiseach recall that when he launched the report at the introduction of regulatory impact analysis in July last, he also announced the establishment of a new business regulation group and, in doing so, spoke of the burdens on the business community in terms of regulation? What does the Taoiseach understand or believe these burdens to be?
Regarding the business regulation group, will it include members of professional bodies such as barristers and solicitors? Does the Taoiseach not agree that where the legal profession is concerned, the problem is not regulation by the State but the fact that its professionals are self-regulating and a law unto themselves? Does he share the widespread concern at the apparent double charging of residential abuse victims by members of the legal profession? What are the implications of these revelations for regulation of the legal profession? Given that many more issues of questionable practice by solicitors arise, will the Taoiseach require, as I believe to be necessary, that the spotlight of inquiry be turned on the legal profession and the practices of solicitors, rather than accommodating many of them, particularly some for whom greed is obviously one of their primary interests?
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will announce the composition and membership of the business regulation forum very shortly. Once the announcement is made, the forum will immediately become operational, all arrangements have been put in place. It is envisaged that the forum will advise the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on regulatory issues as they impact on business and competitiveness and, in particular, on problems arising from outdated, inefficient and disproportionate regulation. The group will examine areas where business can be more competitive so that we can keep Ireland at the cutting edge of leading technologies and business and ensure we are not disadvantaged by competitiveness gains made against us in other European countries or parts of the world. It will be a very useful group.
The business regulation forum is a separate issue from the issue of professions raised by the Deputy. The Competition Authority is nearing the end of its reports on some of the professions, including one on the legal profession. These are the issues the Deputy raises. The study will take account of practices, including some of those over which the Deputy correctly stated the professions are self-regulatory and control their own terms and rules. There are issues in the public domain on those matters at present and, as I stated recently, if they are not sorted out then the issue of legislation will arise. I hope they can be sorted out within their own terms.
We must deal with the issues that arise from the competitiveness council's final report. It has spent years working on this. It has issued interim reports, on eight professions as I recall, and its remaining reports are to be issued before Christmas.
On regulatory reform, has the Government a definition of the role of a regulator in the sense of whether he or she will be primarily a status quo caretaker or an agent for change, for example, a transformer, as one might say, in the case of the energy regulator, to a less carbon intensive energy system in this country? Does the Government have a view of where the driver for change will be? Is it with the regulator or with the Minister, and does the latter thereby have a role in ensuring the regulator is co-operating in that regard?
The Taoiseach indicated in his reply that part of the regulatory impact analysis was to highlight costs. In what way does he measure the costs? In the case of the groceries order, for example, is the cost the loss of farmers, small retailers——
A question to the line Minister concerned might be more appropriate.
I will take the opportunity because I see the line Minister is listening carefully, but I want to ask the Taoiseach specifically because in his reply he said that the regulatory impact analysis was to look at costs. I want to know what he meant by that. If one abolishes the groceries order, the cost is high in terms of loss of small-scale retailers and food producers and I want to know whether that is included in his analysis.
I do not want to go into what the RIA means but there is a need for more competition in the domestic market in many areas because that will drive down costs to the advantage of consumers.
Is it only costs to consumers?
It is the cost base. With more competition, the cost base will improve. It will help everybody. The cost base of the country will help competitiveness, primarily consumers.
Not everybody.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
To give a fuller position on it, there are many issues where RIA comes into play, for example, significant negative impacts on national competitiveness or socially excluded or vulnerable groups, examination of significant environment change, significant policy change in an economic market will have a significant impact on competition and consumers, proposals that will disproportionately impinge on the rights of citizens or impose a disproportionate compliance burden, or the cost to the Exchequer or third parties is significant or disproportionate. A full RIA will be required when one of the factors to which I referred applies and these are the factors that will drive an RIA. When these difficulties arise, an RIA will be done.
The Deputy asked about the forces of change. We all have a role to play — Ministers, Departments, State agencies and the regulators — in bringing change and looking at new ideas. The regulator is in a position where those whom he regulates make detailed reports to him. These are the substantial reports on how they want to act and why they are doing so. He then must determine whether a report is one to which he is prepared to accede and whether it makes sense. He has a key role in all that. He is not the only one to decide the matter but he has a useful role to play in it.
His is the lead role.
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
Yes, but legislation, which Deputy Sargent mentioned, comes from Government and Departments, and so does the policy.
It is written by the regulator.
Deputy Rabbitte has been called.
The policy units lie in Departments, but it does not——
Not in energy.
I hope the Departments have a key role to play. I hope they have not given away all their powers.
Would the Minister comment directly?
I have called Deputy Rabbitte and out of courtesy to colleagues in the House, Deputy Eamon Ryan should allow the Deputy called to submit his question.
I am just informing the Taoiseach.
No harm in a reality check.
To return to the recommendation of Ahead of the Curve, the enterprise strategy group's recommendation for a super regulator, and the contrary view taken by the group in the Taoiseach's Department, is the Taoiseach saying that the view of his group is that there should be no rationalisation of the existing 11 regulators or merely that it did not agree with the particular recommendation of Ahead of the Curve?
I am reminded by the entry to the House of the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Tim O'Malley, of the marvellous headline the Tánaiste received in The Irish Times on 25 April 2001, “Government to abolish curbs on pubs and pharmacies” within a year. Is there any progress to report on that and did the Minister of State make any recommendations on it?
Does Deputy Rabbitte wish to abolish pharmacies? Is that what he is saying?
No, I do not. Unfortunately, I had to resort to them in recent weeks.
I hope they looked after him.
If the Deputy submitted a question to the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, he would not have the Minister of State, Deputy Tim O'Malley, intervening.
Yes, perhaps the Ceann Comhairle has a point. On the Competition Authority and the various reports, lectures etc., what tangibly has been achieved? If there are anti-competitive practices in this economy, as is alleged, and there is anti-competitive activity to the extent suggested in certain significant sectors, why have more prosecutions not been advanced? Why has more action not been taken? For example, the only two cases that have gone to court are the one on pet food for chihuahuas and the one on the Irish League of Credit Unions. If I were seriously interested in tackling alleged anti-competitive activity in the financial services sector, I would not start with the credit unions. There are a number of other sectors I could mention. After all the fine lectures, the high profile public statements, etc. is it a little odd that it seems difficult to get a file to progress as far as taking on a particular dominant influence in several markets I could mention?
A number of points were raised. For the reasons I have given, it was the view of the cross-departmental better regulation group that at this stage a super regulator was not the way to go. While that was the conclusion it reached for the reasons I have given, it was not entirely ruled out in that as new regulators came into play, they would be grouped where there was a suitable mix. Rather than having a separate regulator each time, wherever the group believed there was capacity, they would match them. The cross-departmental better regulation group went against the proposal of a super regulator, which Ahead of the Curve recommended. The RIA process has been in place since 21 June. Therefore, all new regulations and statutory instruments are being examined to see if there is another or better way to do them. That process is happening in all Departments and my Department assists any that need assistance. That part is done and under way.
The third point raised by the Deputy concerns a question that arises on another day. It is later down the line and concerns the Competition Authority's examination of the professions. The authority has provided preliminary and draft reports on a number of professions. Final reports, including that on pharmacists, are on the way.
The Tánaiste is a bit behind on the deadline of 25 April 2001, is she not?
Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
The report on the legal profession is also on the way. There were eight reports in all and two or three final reports are coming forward. The senior person in the authority has moved, but most of the work was done before he left. These reports are to be finalised before the Christmas period.
The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, will have much reading to do, for a man unaccustomed to reading.
It is not so much the reading that will be a challenge, but the implementation of the reports. We look forward to that because based on the interim reports, there will be some interesting challenges.
I wish to tease out with the Taoiseach the issue of the energy regulator. Is it not true the regulator, who previously as a civil servant had written the legislation that set up the regulatory office, established the office in such a way that the Minister cannot direct him on specific policy directions the office needs to take, whether on the issue of security of supply, where we have a huge threat with regard to peak and global oil production, on the issue of cost of energy, where we currently see huge cost increases, or environmental issues with regard to the future of climate change implications and energy policy? Is that not the reason legislation is pending which will amend the regulatory role to allow the Minister have a say? Does the Taoiseach think it was appropriate to give a regulator such freedom that the Minister cannot give directions to him or her?
The Department is the policy initiator. The point I was making is that the Department does not want to be involved in the day to day decisions, but policy direction should rest with the Department, not with the agency. If the Deputy asked should a Department give away all its powers of influence to a regulator, I do not think it should.
Would the Taoiseach acknowledge——
The Deputy should not interrupt the Taoiseach while he is speaking. The Deputy will have an opportunity to put a supplementary question. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat while the Taoiseach is on his feet.
The Deputy's argument is that the Minister's powers are gone and he does not have a say. With regard to either gas or electricity legislation, the policy work is still done within the Department but the regulator decides what movements are made in the market, for example, price increases and capital developments. The regulator makes those decisions but that does not take away from the role of the Department and its input into policy. Departments are not involved in day to day direction of a regulator, nor can they overrule a regulator's report. However, the initial policy is made within the Department.
Am I not correct that in this particular area the Minister cannot issue directions to the regulator on issues such as pricing? While the Taoiseach is right that the Department should have the ultimate say, the reality is that the legislation defines where the power lies. In this case the legislation does not allow the Minister to give directions on policy matters to the regulator. Is that not correct and is this not the reason we are amending the legislation?
The Deputy is right. However, the initial policy in an area is devised by the Department. When a regulator issues a report, a Minister cannot change or direct that report, but he can set policy. The Deputy will say that this moves on into the regulator's report and he cannot change that. The regulator, however, cannot just go ahead and ignore the legislation or policy issued by the Department.