Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the files which were released recently by his Department under the National Archives Act 1986; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39764/05]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
National Archives.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archives in respect of 1975; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39768/05]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department in respect of the files transferred to the National Archives in respect of 1975; the numbers withheld under section 8(4)(a) of the National Archives Act 1986; the number withheld under section 8(4)(b); the number withheld under section 8(4)(c); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40402/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the archives for 1975; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3209/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the files which were released recently by his Department under the National Archives Act 1986; the files pertaining to 1975 which were withheld by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3414/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the files which were released under the National Archives Act 1986 by his Department; the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archives in respect of 1975; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5502/06]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
The evaluation of files for release to the National Archives is carried out by designated officials in my Department. I have no role in that process. It is normal, as files are processed for release each year, that some are certified by the appropriate official for retention on the grounds set forth in the Act. Five files were certified in this way in respect of the January 2006 release. In all, a total of 727 files or file parts were transferred to the National Archives by my Department to be released for public inspection on 1 January 2006.
Of the five files retained, two were retained under section 8(4)(a) of the Act and three were retained under sections 8(4)(b) and (c) of the Act. It is also the responsibility of the statutorily designated officials to determine the particular subsection in accordance with which files are certified for retention.
I understand that approximately 6,000 files were released to the media under the 1975 archival release of which approximately 1% were retained for particular reasons. Does the Taoiseach know how many of those were retained by his Department and if so why?
The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, said in answer to questions that he would be willing to investigate the possibility of having documents returned that were removed by the British in 1922 on the changeover of authority in the State. These matters are being made available through the digital process but is the Minister, or Minister of State, pursuing the original documents removed by the British authorities?
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, announced some time ago his willingness to consider having researchers examine files in his Department which were previously unobtainable or untouchable. Has this been followed through? Does the Taoiseach envisage this happening in all Departments including the Department of the Taoiseach?
In answer to the first question, with reference to my Department, a total of 727 files or part files were transferred in January 2006. Five files were retained, two of which were retained under section 8(4)(a) of the Act and three were retained under subsections 8(4)(b) and 8(4)(c).
What was the subject matter of those files?
Most of these files related to Northern Ireland. A total of 49 files were released without abstractions and partial abstractions were made on five documents, all related to Northern Ireland. The abstractions related to information given in confidence, including security information and information about individuals likely to lead to defamation claims. There were abstractions in other documents but the files were released. The abstractions normally concern parts of files, such as names being crossed out.
The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, is releasing files to co-operate with those seeking information for historical purposes. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has established a working group in his Department to review the files required for historical purposes. The group has requested proposals from various historians. A number of historians and archivists are working with the group to see how best to release the files in an ordered fashion. The Government's policy is to co-operate whenever possible and in particular when the release of files would aid historical research. The examination being carried out in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which involves historians and archivists could be used as a model in other Departments where necessary. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform holds a greater number of files than other Departments and the Minister was anxious to develop a way of bringing this forward.
The Taoiseach stated that five files were retained this year and that most of them were about Northern Ireland. Can he say what was the subject matter of the other files?
I refer to the reply given by the Taoiseach when this question was asked previously. Today's reply is word for word but with the number of files changed. One wonders about questions to the Taoiseach. Since the advent of the word processor, the reply comes back word for word the same. There used to be a time when the intelligent civil servant would rewrite the reply in a different style or come at it from a different angle but now the same chunk of text is taken from the word processor with five substituted for nine. I suggest it would be a great help in the context of the consideration of reform of the Dáil if some of the minor points about questions to the Taoiseach could be examined.
Every year the Taoiseach answers questions on this subject and he states that X number of files have been retained under section 8(4)(b) and another number of other files retained under section 8(4)(a), for varying reasons. Are those files which are held over ever revisited? I presume some of them are held over because some person is still alive or whatever. I am not suggesting there should be somebody in the Taoiseach’s office monitoring the obituary notices, although I bet there is such a person.
That is the job of the Department with responsibility for communications.
Are such files put into the public domain as the years pass? They will have been retained for what seemed good and sensible reasons at the time of the 30-year rule. Are they then retained for ever more or do they come into the public domain?
I will not say I was amused as it is not a suitable word. If my colleague in Howth hears me use the word "amused", he will not be amused. I thought it amazing that as recently as 30 years ago, military intelligence was keeping files on Cabinet Ministers. Does the Taoiseach think this is still happening? Military intelligence was keeping files on Conor Cruise O'Brien, probably the most trenchant critic of terrorism in politics at that time. Does the Taoiseach think military intelligence is keeping an eye on Deputy Cullen when he goes abroad or on whatever he is doing about road tolling? Could this be happening today and is it justifiable?
In reply to Deputy Kenny's question about the departmental group, its remit is to examine the historical value of the archive records held by the Department which are 30 years old. Its members include a number of prominent academics including Professor Mary Daly, principal of the college of arts and Celtic studies, UCD; Professor Ronan Fanning, professor of modern history; Professor Dermot Keogh, professor of history, UCC; Professor Eunan O'Halpin, professor of contemporary history; Gerard Hogan, lecturer in law, TCD; Margaret O'Callaghan, lecturer in politics; Thomas Quinlan, senior archivist and head of acquisitions at the National Archives. Val O'Donnell, former assistant secretary, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, will also be part of the working group which has been asked to report within 12 months. This model can be used for other areas.
In reply to Deputy Rabbitte's question, I will pass on his comments regarding the use of the word processor.
With reference to replies to questions, many files from the 1970s related to Northern Ireland. I have not examined the files but I spoke to people who were involved in their examination. At that stage there was a large flow of information coming in about events and activities but those numbers have decreased in recent years. Only five files were retained this year and there have been some abstractions from the files. For example, out of 2,012 files in 2001, only 13 files were retained. Sections 8(4)(a), (b) and (c), govern the release of files. Section 8(4)(a) states that a file may not be released for reasons of the public interest. Section 8(4)(b) refers to information obtained in confidence and many files from the 1970 to 1971 period are in this category. Other files are not released if they pose a threat of distress or danger of defamation but there have not been many in this category. Information relating to security is the main reason. Deputy Rabbitte asked an interesting question but I am doubtful that the files are revisited but I will inquire whether files are held back forever. I made inquiries in the past as to the reason names cited in files cannot be released even if the information is not released. I was informed that in most of these cases, the file name used would be an individual’s name and this would disclose the information. I made this inquiry a few years ago. I will ask whether any of these files are revisited or whether such a question could be dealt with by the review group in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is widespread interest in the archives from historians and academics, particularly in our universities. Not too many more people may be interested but the aforementioned groups certainly are.
Even though I have been in this job quite a long time, I must be careful what I say. I would love to be able to give Deputy Rabbitte a straight answer about what information is held in military and security records but I am not in a position to do so. It is still an area that intrigues me. Rather than being on the record in 30 years' time as having said I am sure nobody had a file on me or my colleagues, I will decline to do so because I would not be certain.
I hope they are not still monitoring the Cruiser.
They do monitor but what I am not sure.
I wonder with what certainty I could answer the same question.
The Deputy might know a lot about it.
Will the Taoiseach clarify his Department's role under the Archives Act 1986? Does he or his Department have an oversight role on the release of files or even the decision not to release files by any other Department? As regards files that have not been released by the Department of the Taoiseach pertaining to 1975, will the Taoiseach advise us if any of those relate in any way to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of the previous year, 1974? If so, why have they been retained? Can the Taoiseach be specific regarding that area?
Will the Taoiseach advise us if any files — I am advised that "none" is the answer — in the Six Counties section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the year 1975 have been released? Is the Taoiseach in a position to advise whether that is that case?
The decision on how files are given out is a statutory function of nominated senior officials in the Department. I have no input whatsoever, nor have I ever been consulted on any file. It is a statutory position of senior civil servants and I think it is the same in every Department. As far as I know, such decisions must be undertaken at principal officer level or higher, as in my Department. I do not know what is in the files, although many issues in that period were examined. All the files were made fully available to Mr. Justice Barron so he had any information he required, even if it was not in the public domain. Mr. Justice Barron covered a number of issues. The Miami showband killings, which occurred in 1975, and a lot of other major incidents including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, have been examined by Mr. Justice Barron who had access to the full files. They were in his possession.
What about the Six Counties section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
The questions refer specifically to the Taoiseach's Department.
I appreciate that but I referred to the Six Counties aspect of it, which is the Taoiseach's focus.
Today's question time is repetitive. Not only is this almost entirely the same answer as before to these questions on the National Archives but, similarly, questions on freedom of information legislation yesterday elicited almost identical replies, as do questions on disability issues. One must ask whether the limitation on questions here is making question time ridiculous. While they are all interesting issues, it is as interesting as asking about the exhibits in the Natural History Museum next door — they do not change very often but there is no harm in asking the question.
Questions regarding the National Archives afford us an opportunity to query the complaint from the National Archives Office about a lack of space for archival material. Is there any firm delivery date for providing that space? The current Bishop Street premises is inadequate and the number of archives is increasing. According to the National Archives, the number of State papers is set to double over the next 20 years, yet there is nowhere to keep them. With the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, sitting next to him, the Taoiseach may be able to get more details on that question than he might otherwise obtain.
The Deputy is correct that the volume of files and other retrieval material being made available is increasing. The extension of the Act over the years has led to increased pressure on space. The National Archives have been involved with the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon's, Department with a view to getting additional space. I do not know if they have located a new premises but discussions are ongoing with the Commissioners of Public Works concerning premises. Under the law, we have to release these files each year so we must make space available for them. However, much progress has been made in recent years in access, retrieval and viewing of files. The issue of providing extra space in future is under discussion.
I support the suggestion that additional space is required, as well as extra staff. When I was a Minister I had responsibility for this area. There is a scholarly interest in the early part of the last century, from 1900 onwards and through the 1920s. Would the Taoiseach agree that the archives for this period should be revisited? Questions have been raised before on this matter. Records on the civil war are not assembled in such as way as to answer scholarly questions either about individuals, groups or parts of the country. That is a great pity. Even though I was a Minister with responsibility for such archives, my attempts to recover records on my father's activities in north Cork, both during the war of independence and the civil war, were only partially successful. I have a feeling there has been a movement away from this period.
If we are to have good social and constitutional histories covering the period to 2016, we will need to examine the state of such records. Some records held in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform cover a 15 or 20-year period during which people applied for pensions from which they were excluded in the early years of the State. The lives of a whole series of people are effectively being wiped out because such files are inaccessible. Since there is nobody now alive from that period, it is worth revisiting the era in view of the forthcoming anniversaries.
I have no difficulty with the Deputy's suggestion which is a good one. The sensitivities of the past are over. As other Members have said, some records are held in the military archives. They are not complete because many people at the time for one reason or another declined to take medals or pensions. They did that out of their sense of honour.
Their reasons are interesting.
Yes. There may be other files in the archives or in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I will raise the issue, particularly as we have just finished work on the pre Act of Union laws and will rescind about 2,000 such laws under the new Bill. It has been an interesting project, relating to laws before 1800. Deputy Michael Higgins is asking for a more current appraisal. I will examine it and see what is possible. I take the point the Deputy has made with regard to the records possibly being taken together from whatever source.
Chief State Solicitor’s Office.
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Nally report under the re-organisation of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39765/05]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the reorganisation of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3210/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the reorganisation of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. [5503/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together.
The recommendations of the Nally report in relation to the re-organisation of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor have been largely implemented. Agreement with the unions involved was achieved during 2001. The criminal prosecutions functions undertaken by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor were transferred to the Office of the 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 DPP's office for professional solicitor and technical promotion posts formed part of the agreement and this is now operating. A negotiation process with local State solicitors is currently under way seeking to agree on the transfer of the service to the DPP. Consultants appointed to undertake a study of the current workload of local State solicitors and their expense base have recently submitted their report which is now under consideration in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be used as the basis for substantive negotiations with the State solicitors' association. All sides are anxious to conclude these negotiations as quickly as possible. 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 October, the Taoiseach told the Dáil these negotiations were under way with the local State solicitors with a view to transferring that service to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Have they concluded or is that review complete? What is the current status of the negotiations with local State solicitors? Is there a timescale for the transfer of functions to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Has a date been fixed?
Most of the issues have been dealt with, including the common promotion pool within the two offices between the CSSO and the solicitors' division of the DPP's office for professional solicitor and technical promotion posts. The only remaining element is that of the State solicitors. The report has been completed and the Chief State Solicitor and the DPP are examining it, that is in terms of their tactics for the negotiations. I understand that all sides have agreed that they should conclude this. One can guess what it all comes down to but they have agreed. The legislative provisions are already there and I suppose it is now down to financial and administrative issues.
Is the Taoiseach aware that among the functions of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor is the advising and representing of the State in asylum and refugee law cases and the conveyancing of State property and related property law services? In the context of the reorganisation, and given the increase in asylum and refugee cases in recent years, has that entailed an increased work load and have additional staff been recruited in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor in order to cope? Are those staff working in the section required to be fully conversant with international human rights law and standards and Ireland's obligations under them?
Deputy Parlon, who has responsibility for decentralisation, is sitting beside the Taoiseach. In the context of the current decentralisation programme and the role of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor with regard to conveyancing, has that also encroached, because of the proposed relocation of Departments and entire sections of Departments, in terms of the time and work load of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor? Does the increased extensive legal work in conveyancing mean additional staff are already in situ or being recruited in order to meet that purpose?
While decentralisation issues are large in terms of finance deals, they do not take any longer to deal with than very small cases. However, the work of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, in immigration and all kinds of areas, has increased and continues to do so. A staff complement of 230 has now been approved and the Office of the DPP is recruiting the additional staff sanctioned. That office now has a staff complement of approximately 170. There have been substantial increases in staffing rates over the past five years. An agreement was reached a few years ago. There has been an increase of 75 staff, including 66 professional technical staff. A new recruitment scale for solicitors has replaced the old two-tier system. Some 52 extra professional staff have been appointed to both offices while 12 extra senior posts have been created along with 14 extra technical posts. More legal clerks have also been recruited. All those extra staff are now in place but their workload has grown. They have also undertaken a major IT modernisation programme. That work, which began in 2000, was completed, by and large, by last year.
With regard to advising on commercial contracts and so on, does the Taoiseach know if that workload is increasing or reducing? Yesterday we had a discussion on the role of the NDFA, the National Development Finance Agency, and the infrastructure programmes. Must the Office of the Chief State Solicitor be involved with major commercial contracts entered into by the State? Is that office still the main source of legal advice or would agencies like the NDFA get outside advice?
To the best of my knowledge the NDFA uses outside legal advice. I do not know to what extent it uses the Office of the Chief State Solicitor but I know the NDFA uses outside legal advice because I get a monthly schedule of the projects in which it is involved. The legal work of Departments is traditionally done through the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. There is no ideological reason for not contracting out the work. We have contracted out work in specific cases where the workload involved was beyond the capacity of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. That office also makes extensive use of legal counsel in dealing with day to day cases. In the case of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, more prosecution work is now outsourced to barristers and private practice than in most other common law jurisdictions. There has been a sea-change in that regard over the past few years. All of the advocacy work in contested jury trials is outsourced to the Bar. In other common law jurisdictions the tendency now is to make greater use of in-house lawyers. Local State solicitors are of course private practitioners who work on contract for the State rather than as State employees, but that issue is currently under discussion.
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 Regulatory Reform in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39766/05]
Joe Higgins
Question:11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress to date in implementing the recommendations of the OECD report Regulatory Reform in Ireland. [1871/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report Regulatory Reform in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3211/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress to date in 2006 in implementing the recommendation of the OECD report Regulatory Reform in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3415/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress to date in 2006 with regard to the implementation of the OECD report Regulatory Reform in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4183/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, together.
Significant progress has been made since the publication of the OECD report on regulatory reform in Ireland. Many of the OECD recommendations related to specific sectoral issues and the appropriate Ministers with responsibility for those sectoral areas are reporting directly to the House on progressing the OECD recommendations.
However, as I explained in previous answers on this issue, the focus of our efforts in progressing regulatory reform is on implementing the White Paper, Regulating Better. The White Paper was published in January 2004 in response to the OECD's report. It sets out six core principles of better regulation and a detailed action plan on how these principles will be translated into how we design, implement and review legislation and regulation. Progress has been made in a number of key areas set out in the White Paper.
The better regulation group, which was established in 2004 to oversee the implementation of the action plan arising from the White Paper, met three times in 2005. The first meeting of 2006 took place at the end of January. Three subgroups have been established. The first is to progress certain commitments in the White Paper in relation to developing improved approaches to regulatory appeals and reviewing the issue of penalties for non-compliance with laws or regulations. Another subgroup is looking at improving electronic accessibility to statutory instruments and a third group is completing the audit of the regulatory framework.
In July 2005 I announced the establishment of a business regulation forum. The forum, which is under the aegis of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, comprises senior members of the public sector and business. It will give business an opportunity to identify regulatory measures that negatively impact on business and competitiveness or issues arising from inefficient, outdated or disproportionate regulation. The forum has met twice so far and is scheduled to meet again on 23 February.
Work is ongoing in supporting the roll out of a regulatory impact analysis, RIA. Since June 2005 a regulatory impact analysis must be conducted on all primary legislation involving changes to the regulatory framework, significant statutory instruments, EU directives and significant EU regulations. Guidelines on conducting the RIAs were published last October and approximately 1,300 copies have been distributed to Departments and Government offices. My Department is providing support and guidance to Departments and offices in respect of the regulatory impact analysis on an ongoing basis. Dedicated training has also been developed and will be run regularly during 2006.
Consistent with the White Paper's commitment to providing greater clarity and accessibility to legislation, the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Act 2005 was signed into law just before Christmas on 18 December. This Act provides for the repeal of 206 statutes, which were enacted before 1922, that are spent, obsolete or no longer of practical utility. The process of streamlining and improving accessibility to the Statute Book will continue in 2006 with the introduction of a new statute law revision Bill. This Bill will clearly set out those Acts dating from before 1800 that are to remain in force. All other pre-1800 Acts, estimated at 2,300, will be repealed by this Bill. A public consultation phase will take place before publication of the Bill, which I hope will be enacted by the end of this year.
Will the Taoiseach outline the six core principles he referred to? Has the Taoiseach given any consideration to the issue of a single, powerful regulator, which would bring the benefits of pooling expertise and a higher degree of accountability in the area of regulatory reform?
In its report, the OECD identified telecommunications and energy as being of particular concern. Does the Taoiseach have an up to date assessment of the extent of reform in both of these areas? Does the Taoiseach agree that any answer other than "dismal" would not be true to date?
The Deputy's question on energy and telecommunications might be more appropriate to the relevant line Minister.
The issue was in the report referred to by the Taoiseach. I know the Ceann Comhairle is trying to be helpful because of time.
The issues being examined are where there are significant negative impacts on national competitiveness, significant negative impacts on the socially excluded or vulnerable groups, significant environmental damage or where the proposals involve a significant policy change in an economic market, have a significant impact on competition or customers, will disproportionately impinge on the rights of citizens, impose a disproportionate compliance burden or where the cost to the Exchequer or third parties is significant. These are the types of areas being examined. Before legislation concerning regulation is introduced, this process must be gone through, which is very good. Often, what happens is these things are put on the Statute Book and people find out later about the burden.
Is there proofing involved?
Yes. Before legislation can get through, it must undergo that process. It cannot happen unless it makes sense.
On the business group, this is so that not just people in the system, as good as they are, are involved. People from outside business have a say and can put forward their case, not just on new but also on existing regulations, so we can try to get away from slavishly following something because an Act was passed 40 years ago. It will help us get rid of that. This process will be very helpful on issues in competitiveness and doing away with the disproportionate compliance burden on whoever is in a society, not just business.
There have been a number of other reports since the OECD survey. The examinations are finished on the engineering, architecture and dentistry professions. In a number of other examinations work has finished in Departments, with upcoming legislation. The pharmacy review group has completed its work. In a number of areas, such as the legal profession, the work has been completed and will form an amendment to legislation.
Much of this is about restrictive practices and areas in which there is a need to reform the law and give more transparency and accountability, not allowing vested interests to hold sway. The legislation being prepared on the licensed trade, and the pubs and licensed liquor trades, has gone for drafting, which will result in streamlining and modernisation.
Does the Taoiseach recall that on a number of occasions, I raised one of the actions recommended in the Government's White Paper on regulatory reform in relation to the legislative process, namely, to improve the information flow and, specifically, the publication in advance of legislation of the draft heads of a Bill?
Rather than going over all of the previous points, questions and exchanges we have had over the years on this matter, can the Taoiseach indicate to the House the number of Bills or the proportion of them in which the heads have been published in advance of the legislation since the start of the 29th Dáil and to which Departments they applied?
There are two issues. I said to the Deputy the way a Bill is drafted is that the heads are normally taken separately and work is finished on them in the parliamentary draftsman's office. Normally — in most cases — there is consultation on them with the various stakeholders and interested people. I have told Ministers there is an advantage in publishing heads at that stage. Often, Departments seem to engage in dialogue with various interests without publishing the heads. The Tánaiste on the nursing home Bill has stated she has or will publish the heads. Departments have been reluctant over the years to publish heads of Bills but they still engage in discussions. My view is that there is not much point in this. It is just as easy to do it the other way.
The Taoiseach knows it is not happening.
It is in some areas. I accept there is a traditional reluctance in the system even though I have stated I cannot see the difficulty. There is often a year between making legislation and the heads being agreed. It is useful to put it forward but I will continue my efforts to get people to publish the heads of the Bill because I agree with it.
Will the Taoiseach check about the detail in relation to the number?
I will.
Regarding the OECD's views on regulatory impact analysis, was the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill subject to regulatory impact analysis? Does the Taoiseach accept the comments about the lack of proper regulatory analysis and the regulatory failure cited by Airtricity when it pulled out of the residential energy market in Ireland? What lessons must be learned from this devastating development given that 11,000 customers must change from green, clean energy to something dirtier? Is the Taoiseach satisfied the regulatory impact analysis is working when such a major regulatory failure can be cited?
The benefit of the introduction of regulatory impact analysis is an improvement in the way new regulations are made. Departments and offices will assess the likely impact of new regulations across all legislation in a more structured and consistent way. Wider and more consistent consultation is required before making regulations. Regulations used to be made on the basis of people's beliefs and would not work out in practice. Now, people must consult and this is the benefit of this system. The OECD had advised this.
Consultation must also take place with customers likely to be affected so stakeholders on the other side of implementation of an Act have a voice. A practical examination of an Act takes place and consideration is given to downstream compliance and enforcement consequences of regulations, including monitoring and review mechanisms where appropriate.
The arguments do not have to be accepted but at least a two-way process exists rather than something becoming law without consultation. Those who must engage on different sides have an impact on the process. I accept this is early in the process so we are changing from a culture that did not consult widely in many areas to one that must engage. It will take time before we reap the benefits but it is now happening.
Have no lessons been learned from Airtricity?
I am not sure if the decision was taken for commercial considerations.
It was taken for regulatory considerations.