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. [28194/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Chief State Solicitor’s Office.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the disappointment expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the delay in transferring responsibility for the State solicitor’s office from the Attorney General to the DPP’s office, as recommended in the report of the public prosecution study group; if the Government has approved the proposed move; the reason for the delay; when it is expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28374/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Nally report on the Chief State Solicitor’s office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30662/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
As I indicated in reply to previous questions on the matter, the recommendations of the Nally report in relation to the reorganisation of the Chief State Solicitor's office have been largely 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 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 negotiating process with local State solicitors is currently under way, seeking to agree on the transfer of the service to the DPP. Two reviewers were appointed to undertake a study of the current workload of local State solicitors and their expense base. They have submitted their report and this has been considered by the Chief State Solicitor's office and the DPP's office.
A formal offer of increased remuneration, approved by the Department of Finance, was made to the State Solicitors Association on 21 April 2006. Representatives of the Chief State Solicitor's office and the DPP's office met with the State Solicitors Association to discuss the offer. The association rejected this offer and submitted a new proposal on 10 July 2006. A new offer was made to the association on 6 September 2006 and it indicated on 29 September that it will not accept this offer at present and wishes to have further discussions on the matter.
Enabling legislation and appropriate legislative provisions on the transfer of the local State solicitor service are contained in the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Act 2005, which was signed by the President on 9 July 2005.
A number of questions arise from this matter. We must accept that one of society's duties is to vindicate the rights of citizens to peaceably enjoy this society. Part of this duty involves ensuring, as far as possible, that when a wrong is committed against a citizen, justice is seen to be done. Perhaps the DPP's office, the Chief State Solicitor's office or the Garda Síochána need to liaise with victims of serious crime to a much greater extent. Certain well-publicised cases over the past number of years consisted of an ongoing series of events, but no information was given to the families of those who were murdered or otherwise affected by crime, which caused them great trauma and stress. There should be dedicated liaison officers within the DPP's office, the Chief State Solicitor's office and the Garda Síochána to inform victims of the progress of the case.
The DPP and his office should be able to make submissions on behalf of the people so that society can have a voice in the range of sentences handed down by judges in court. Would the Taoiseach consider it appropriate if, prior to a sentence being handed down, the DPP, on behalf of the people, voiced an opinion on the range of sentences available? It is only a convention that this does not happen and it might be very useful if it did happen.
Will the Taoiseach progress the issues of dedicated liaison officers and the opportunity for the DPP to voice an opinion on behalf of society in so far as the Nally report is concerned?
The Nally report did not cover any of these issues as it was produced some years ago and, as was pointed out, its recommendations effectively have been implemented. I will gladly bring the points made by Deputy Kenny to the attention of the relevant offices.
As the Deputy is aware, the DPP's office is independent in its functions and actions but there would be no problem if I brought the House's point of view to its attention. In a speech he gave earlier this year, the DPP spoke about the point the raised by Deputy Kenny in respect of the lack of information given to families of victims. The DPP's office is conscious of the fact that when decisions not to proceed with a case are made, it is left to legal points rather than the emotional impact on the families concerned. I will bring the points mentioned by Deputy Kenny to the attention of the relevant parties.
I will revisit the question of the transfer of the State solicitor's office from the Office of the Attorney General to the DPP's office. I heard what the Taoiseach said but I am not clear where the decision now stands. This was a recommendation of the Nally report as long ago as 1999. What is the Taoiseach's expectation in terms of that transfer being effected?
In his annual report, the DPP stated he would like to see a legal policy unit opened in his office. Times have changed and he is no longer concerned with prosecuting files alone. Often, his office is required to give advice on legal policy and he feels the office would be enhanced by the creation of such a policy unit. Has progress been made on that? Has the DPP sought this or has the Government granted resources for it? Does the Government have a view on it?
On the first issue, as was pointed out, all initiatives and recommendations of Nally were implemented and the conclusions and recommendations were agreed. The matter of the State solicitor was held for further discussion. The current system of appointing State solicitors through open competition, which was the initiative proposed at that time, is working well. It is done through open competition now and there is no decision to change from that position. It changed from the old system to open competition.
Other issues arose from that. Following that report, State solicitors put forward a number of staffing initiatives which were examined by the Chief State Solicitor's office. That has been an industrial relations issue for the past year or two. The office has been dealing with the State Solicitors Association which now acts for State solicitors. Because of the way State solicitor offices are now formed, staff and costs differ from county to county. Some offices are large, such as Cork, Limerick and Galway, while others are small.
Negotiations have been trying to reach an offer which can be used across the system. Three offers have been turned down. Last week or the week before, the State Solicitors Association did not accept the latest offer and wish to have further discussions on the matter, particularly on the issue of personal pay and remuneration element. New contracts will have to be agreed with the DPP. I am advised efforts are continuing although three offers have been rejected since Easter — in May, June and September. If agreement can be achieved, new State solicitors' contracts which have been subject to open competition since Nally will have to be agreed with the Director of Public Prosecutions. As I understand it, that work cannot be finalised without agreement on salaries, expenses and overheads. The State solicitors' offices are an important part of the legal system.
In reply to Deputy Kenny, the DPP has put forward a number of points in speeches on how he wishes to change the format of his office. I understand the changes are subject to the annual budget exercise handled by my officials. Discussions with the Department of Finance on those issues have not finished. I am not sure whether the policy office mentioned is part of that. I know the DPP has proposals and initiatives on accommodation and other issues being discussed at present.
The Taoiseach mentioned rejection of the offer. Was that based on monetary considerations alone or has there been an evaluation of the effects of the transfer of the Chief State Solicitor's office from the Attorney General to the DPP? Was that done independently, particularly with regard to the general efficiency of the proposal and the effects on individual cases? Has the Taoiseach any views on the effects or merits of the change?
Will the Taoiseach indicate the status of the offer of increased remuneration regarding the State solicitors? Does the Taoiseach think this is all about remuneration or are there other issues that must be clarified?
There were a number of issues because there were new contracts with the DPP and they are issued on a competitive basis. At this stage, however, it is down to money; the other issues have been completed. There is a problem because some of the offices are very large while others are very small. It is a hard issue to find a basis for a settlement. There have been three offers and discussions are continuing.
I am advised that the system has worked well over the past few years. There was a total overhaul of all the offices, with huge increases in staff and investment in information communication technology. That work is ongoing. The Chief State Solicitor's office has now recruited additional staff and has a complement of 238 full-time equivalents, a huge increase on the number a few years ago. There is now only a small number of vacancies in the office. The DPP has recruited the additional staff sanctioned and it has a staff complement of 170, so there are now 400 people between the two offices. As I stated, there is now a promotional base where they can move between offices; the ring-fencing no longer exists. From a staff point of view, the situation is much better.
The Nally report recognised and identified problems with grading, appointments, transfer and promotion of staff. There were a number of issues that led to a difficult position at that stage with staffing. In the CSSO and the solicitor division of the DPP, promotions and professional and technical grades are now open to all suitably qualified people. The system is working much better and the tensions of the past are gone with better promotional prospects and movement between sections.
There were many other initiatives, such as the setting up of better library, research and ICT facilities, and those have all been implemented. We have reached the last point of an agreement with the Chief State Solicitor's office which will allow new contracts with the DPP.
When the Chief State Solicitor's office last came before the Committee on Finance and the Public Service, I asked about its role in determining which cases brought by citizens through the courts against the State would be fought by the State. Does the Taoiseach recall the number of cases where the State has vigorously contested cases, for example, cases brought by parents fighting for the rights of their children to special needs education? Is he aware of the great hurt that has caused to many families? Have the changes he outlined in any way affected the location of the determination of what cases should be fought by the State where citizens are pursuing their rights or is it the case that it is still vested in the control of the Chief State Solicitor's office?
I do not think the changes have changed the points of law. Both the DPP and the Chief State Solicitor's office will take cases or fight cases based on what their legal judgment is and the culpability or rights of the State. Obviously I hope that because of the additional resources that have been put in for a number of years, they are in a better position to do that from the point of view of having the resources and staff to do so but I do not think their legal judgment would have changed because of the administrative changes in the office.
Regulatory Reform.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 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. [28195/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with the public consultation process on appealing the decisions of regulators announced by him on 26 July 2006; the number of submissions received to date; when he expects the process to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28369/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:6 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. [29229/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30663/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
Significant progress has been made since the publication of the OECD Report on Regulatory Reform in Ireland. The focus of our efforts in progressing regulatory reform is now on implementing the White Paper on better regulation, Regulating Better, which was published in January 2004 in response to the OECD's report. It sets out six core principles that are to be reflected in how we design, implement and review legislation and regulation. Some of the key areas outlined in the OECD report relate 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.
Progress has been made in a number of key areas set out in the White Paper. The better regulation group was established in 2004 to oversee the implementation of the action plan which forms part of the White Paper. This group has met four times so far this year. At present, the better regulation group oversees the work of three subgroups. The first subgroup has been charged with progressing certain commitments in the White Paper in relation to developing improved approaches to regulatory appeals. It prepared a consultation paper on regulatory appeals which was issued in July last and is the basis of a public consultation process that is under way. I will return to this shortly in reply to Deputy Rabbitte's question. Another subgroup of the better regulation group is looking at improving electronic accessibility to statutory instruments. A third subgroup is finalising a database that identifies bodies in Ireland which have regulatory functions.
Alongside this work, the better regulation unit in my Department has commissioned a comprehensive survey of business attitudes to, and experience of, regulation. This will build on a similar survey conducted in 2002. The survey has been guided by input from both the better regulation group and the business regulation forum, which is under the aegis of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It is intended that the survey will focus not only on red tape and administrative burdens but also on the impacts of regulation on business more broadly such as the extent to which it facilitates or is a barrier to economic growth and the competitiveness of business. Following a competitive tendering process, the ESRI was appointed to conduct the survey and it is expected the survey results will be published by the end of the year.
My Department continues to provide support and guidance to Departments and offices on regulatory impact analysis, which is now required for all proposals for significant new regulations being sent to Government for approval.
The process of modernising the Statute Book also continues with the ongoing review of all legislation enacted before the foundation of the State. Deputies will recall the enactment last year of the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Act, which repealed 206 Acts. Earlier this year, there was public consultation on the repeal of a further 2,000 Acts dating from before 1801. There was a very positive response to that consultation, with 70 submissions being received. The results of that consultation are being considered by the Office of the Attorney General.
In light of progress made since the public consultation, the Government agreed to widen the scope of the repeal process to include Acts made since 1801. Accordingly, a new consultation phase to cover Acts made in the period from 1801 to 6 December 1922 was advertised last week and is now under way. Once these latest consultations are complete, the Government will introduce a statute law revision Bill to repeal all remaining pre-1922 legislation from the period 1200 to 1922 which has been found to be redundant or obsolete. It is intended to publish this new Bill by Christmas.
Deputies will also be aware of the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002. Shortly before the summer the Government agreed that the Law Reform Commission will conduct a programme of restatement. This programme is to be carried out under the oversight of a steering group, which includes representatives of the Law Reform Commission and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and will be chaired by my Department. In May this year, I launched a public consultation process where I invited interested parties to propose areas of law for restatement as a priority. The steering group is examining the submissions received.
Turning to Deputy Rabbitte's question, another commitment in the White Paper was to develop an improved approach to appealing the decisions of the major economic and sectoral regulatory bodies. Given the complex nature of the issues involved in appeals, the Government decided to initiate a broad public consultation process on the issue and a consultation paper was prepared by a sub-group of the better regulation group. The consultation process was launched on 26 July 2006 and advertised in a number of national newspapers. A very successful consultation seminar in relation to appeals was organised by my Department on 14 September 2006 to generate debate on the issue and encourage submissions. The seminar presented legal, international and business experience in relation to appeals. Speakers at the seminar included the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Attorney General. A number of presentations from the seminar as well as the consultation document are available on the better regulation website or in hard copy on request.
Two submissions have been received to date and a number of other submissions are expected before the closing date of 31 October 2006. The better regulation group will then review submissions received and publish a synthesis document. These submissions will inform proposals on appeals which the better regulation group will prepare for consideration by the Government by the middle of 2007.
I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his lengthy reply. The 2001 report referred to a number of bottlenecks in physical infrastructure, such as housing, transportation and environmental services, which it said were responsible for fuelling inflation. Is it not true that these bottlenecks still exist and are a contributing cause of rising inflation?
The ESB and Bord Gáis are part of a regulated sector. The Government commissioned an expensive report from Deloitte & Touche, which recommended the break-up of the grid and the generation section of the ESB. The Government rejected this recommendation. Would the Taoiseach not consider that competition and separateness would have been valuable, while both would still have been owned by the State? Has he examined the position in which the regulators find themselves? For example, they have given a 34% increase in gas prices, which affects hundred of thousands of people, and a 20% price increase will be allowed to the ESB later in the year. The regulators approved those increases based on information which is no longer pertinent. For example, in Britain gas sells at a minus price and the price of crude oil is below €60 per barrel.
General questions are in order. More detailed questions should be addressed to the relevant Minister.
I know. I am lucky I got that far.
That is a fair assessment.
They are part of the regulated sector. The regulator cannot amend the prices it has given unless the entity returns and asks for a price reduction, which is unlikely. In the interests of pressurised families the Government should examine this.
Does the Taoiseach recognise that the Green Paper on Energy recently published by the Government fails to deal with the fundamental issue——
Again, that is a matter for the Minister.
If the Ceann Comhairle will let me finish the sentence I will explain that it is about regulatory reform in the energy sector and the Government's Green Paper does not grasp that nettle. In the context of the OECD report, which mentioned bottlenecks in physical infrastructure, energy is central to the next 25 to 50 years of our country. Will the Taoiseach comment on that element of the OECD regulatory reform?
The group's main focus has been on issues around the economic and sectoral regulator authorities, and there are a number of those, including the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, the Commission for Aviation Regulation, the Commission for Energy Regulation, the Financial Regulator, the Competition Authority and the Commission for Taxi Regulation. It has endeavoured to work with all these groups. Deputy Kenny asked about energy in particular. The Commission for Energy Regulation is an independent statutory body established under the Regulation Act of the late 1990s. Since then it has regulated the markets and since 2002 it has regulated the natural gas market too. The commission's functions and duties are wide-ranging and have grown since its establishment under statutory order.
The Government recognises the fundamental role played by the ESB in the economic and social development of the State. However, it is of the view that there is strategic value in maintaining a strong, commercially viable ESB into the future. The Government does not favour the fragmentation of the ESB and that is why it did not agree with the proposals to which Deputy Kenny referred. The European Commission, in the context of the Green Paper on Energy, mooted the establishment of a single regulatory authority to better progress the fully liberalised market agenda. That matter is under discussion and the two regulators, North and South, are preparing a dialogue in the context of the all-Ireland energy market, which is making enormous strides. Development of a single regulatory body is signalled as a long-term strategic goal in the development of the all-Ireland energy market. Examination of the benefits and requirements for the creation of an all-Ireland regulatory body is scheduled for two or three years from now. We are going to move into that area.
On the point relating to the regulator making a decision, the process is long and drawn out and takes a number of months to complete. If the regulator believes that the circumstances have changed, it is a matter for him, under the relevant statute, to deal with the issues. I do not believe he can deal with fluctuations that occur on a weekly basis. The regulator has responsibility for making the decisions to which I refer.
As regards the other regulators and the appeals mechanism, work is ongoing in that regard. The idea is to try to bring uniformity to the kind of mechanisms used by the various regulators. It is not intended to have a super-regulator but rather to ensure that there is consistency in the approaches taken by regulators — not just as such approaches relate to business but to everyone — in the way they operate.
Did I understand the Taoiseach to state that a new consultation process, which will ultimately lead to the removal from the Statute Book of measures in this regard from the period 1200 to 1922, has been embarked on?
Yes.
From the time of Henry VIII, 1536.
There is nothing like keeping up with the times.
Is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform aware of this development?
In terms of regulatory appeals, is the purpose of the consultation process — I gather from the Taoiseach's answer that this is still under way — merely to bring about uniformity and consistency or does he envisage, depending on the outcome of the process, that new legislation designed to bring about changes in the current system relating to one or other sector will have to be introduced? Is the Taoiseach aware of what was the response to the advertisement of the fact that this consultation process is under way? Did it attract interest and contributions from consumer bodies as opposed to those that might have an economic or other vested interest in this matter?
In the context of the remarks the Taoiseach made in reply to Deputy Kenny on the area of energy, was the Deputy correct that the regulator may only deal, for example, with the extraordinary increase of 34% in gas prices on the Sunday before last in the event of Bord Gáis returning to him? I had been under the impression that the regulator may only review the matter once a year. If that is so, is that not an urgent matter for us to address in light of the hardship that will be caused by such an increase when, as Deputy Kenny pointed out, for example, the opposite is happening in the United Kingdom?
On legislation, some hundreds of old Acts remain in place. We are almost there on the 1922 period. We must now review the old Acts and get rid of those that do not need to be there; we need to obtain the statutory instruments and statute law. This process has already started and on its completion the Law Reform Commission will then try to consolidate the Acts. It intends to set up a unit — discussions are taking place with the Department of Finance at present — and will be able to consolidate far more legislation going forward. Consequently, we will have a far tidier Statute Book. Any work that has taken place in recent years extended back in the main to 1922. There is still a great deal of other legislation and statutory instruments. Even if someone takes 1922 as a base — we are fairly close to achieving this completely — many other laws exist. In the next few years, the aim is to get the entire legislative base and statutory instruments right up to date. It will then be consolidated on an ongoing basis. Rather than going through the Departments to do this, which would take years, the Law Reform Commission will undertake this task. This will improve matters greatly.
The summary of the appeals mechanism for each of the various bodies I mentioned, such as the Commission for Communications Regulation, Commission for Aviation Regulation, Commission for Energy Regulation, the Financial Regulator etc., has been presented in the consultation paper. The group that is working on this matter has gathered information on appeals mechanisms within the public service and in respect of administrative decisions and other sectoral appeals. While this data informed the group's work, it is not referred to in detail in the paper. It tried to take all these areas into account by examining appeal mechanisms, including some from other countries, to see what changes could be made.
I understand from those working on this matter that, based on the experience of individual members and the information gathered both domestically and internationally, the group has identified a number of issues relevant to the design of an appeals mechanism for regulatory authorities. These include whether appeals should be heard by a court or an appeals panel; whether an appeals body should be ad hoc or a standing body; whether regulatory decisions should be suspended pending the outcome of an appeal; and methods for avoiding vexatious appeals.
A host of groups, organisations, bodies and agencies have the right, under statute, to make an appeal. I understand there are more than 100 such bodies. This measure is to try to bring this into some kind of coherent order. As the Deputy's question suggested, not everyone is jumping up to give his or her view in this regard and responses have not been great from either individuals or consumer groups. Responses tend to come from the professional groups. My Department's officials, without my urging have tried in the consultation paper to orientate a section on consumer and citizen appeals. They are examining developments in other countries. Hence, the officials themselves are trying to generate this mechanism. Unfortunately however, such matters do not greatly catch the imagination of Joe Public. However, they are important because they pertain to citizens' rights as to how they can appeal a decision made by a particular body. This is why my officials held public consultations and open days, which were useful.
The electricity issue is probably of interest to most people at present. I understand that on 8 September, the Commission for Energy Regulation published its draft decision on an average price increase of 19.7% for ESB consumers, to come into effect on 1 January. The proposed price will vary across various categories and while approving the price increase, the Commission for Energy Regulation has reduced the total revenue requirements sought by the ESB by more than €80 million, or approximately 3.5%. Moreover, it should be noted that the public sector obligation levy for next year will be zero. However, the Commission for Energy Regulation has decided to end the regulation of ESB tariffs for its largest customers and the commission's public consultation of the draft tariff closed on 29 September. Consequently, the regulator will make a final tariff determination for 2007. The energy regulator has indicated that the tariff will remain in place until the introduction of an all-island energy market, which is now scheduled for November 2007. To be precise about this, he is still preparing to make his determination, which will last for a year from 1 November next. I assume that the fluctuations which are happening——
Is the Taoiseach saying that the figure of 19.7% is an indicative one at this stage?
It is a draft consideration. As I understand it, his draft consideration did not change much in other years. However, it is a draft. If one examines the position, one will find that the cost of fuel is obviously the main driver of the price. When the tariffs were set last year, it was assumed that natural gas would cost 41c per therm. The forward price of gas that is assumed for next year is 58c, which is an increase of 48%. The equivalent increase for oil is approximately 36%. I do not know what level of headroom the regulator provided for in his various calculations of how it will average out over a given period of time. We need to examine those figures. One can see in the regulator's judgment how it is going. The regulator has stated that when he makes his final determination, it will last until the all-island energy market joint regulation report, which comes into effect on 1 November. It is obvious that he is aware of what is happening at present. When he makes his decision shortly, that will be it until 1 November.
That would make the increase in gas prices all the more punitive, if it remains at 34%.
There will be an increase of 19.7% in the price of electricity and of 34% in the price of gas.
Yes.
People are already paying that in their household gas bills.
No, the price increases will become effective from 1 January. When the regulator makes his final determination in his report, it will become effective from 1 January and it will last until 1 November of next year.
Tá mé ag fanacht go foighneach, a Cheann Comhairle.
Was Deputy Kenny making the point that the increase in gas prices has already come into effect?
Yes.
It came into effect on 1 October.
Yes.
The increase in electricity prices will come into effect on 1 November.
That is correct.
I apologise to Deputy Sargent for interrupting him.
That is all right. I am interested in the Taoiseach's stated commitment to improving the mechanisms whereby decisions made by regulators can be appealed. I understand that the process of consultation on that matter is under way. Has any progress been made in that regard? Can the Taoiseach report on that process?
Will any poverty impact assessments be undertaken of the enormous and harsh proposed increases of 34% in gas prices and of 20% in electricity prices? Will such assessments be published by the energy regulator so we can be sure that someone is cognisant of the impact of such increases?
In light of the problems being encountered by customers of Smart Telecom, does the Government intend to reform the regulation of telecommunications in this country? Such reform is needed, not least as a result of our international broadband embarrassment.
That question would be more appropriate to a line Minister.
Perhaps the Taoiseach has some news for the House in that regard. Is there to be a review of the lifting of the groceries order, given that it has not led to the price reductions which were expected?
That question does not apply. The time for Taoiseach's questions has almost elapsed.
I was waiting for a long time.
The Deputy asked about the ongoing consultation process. As I said, all the issues relating to the appeals mechanisms which are available at present, such as court appeals, and the alternative systems or structures which could be put in place have been examined. The group has highlighted 34 specific questions and invited the respondents to the consultation process to address them. It is intended to streamline the entire system, to make it more coherent than the system which has developed since the foundation of the State, and to try to get consumers and businesses to come together to develop a public view on narrowing the focus of what appeals should be.
On the issue of poverty difficulties, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, has already announced the changes for those in receipt of units who will be protected from increases in this area.
A number of possibilities exist to improve the appeals system and views on various models and options are being sought as part of the ongoing consultation process. I do not wish to prejudice the outcome and I look forward to seeing proposals emanate from the group on what is a very important issue because such issues influence how action occurs in a number of areas. The country is far more attractive, and business and consumer interests are helped, when such issues are presented clearly.