Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the projected costs to date of the communications unit in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30613/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Expenditure.
Eamon Gilmore
Question:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the projected costs of the communications unit in his Department to date in 2009; his plans to change the role of the unit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32523/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the cost of the communications unit in his Department from June 2007 to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39056/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3 together.
The projected cost of the communications unit in 2009 is €257,432, of which €119,270 is a direct cost to my Department while the balance is borne by three other Departments whose staff are seconded to the unit. The cost of the unit from June 2007 to date has been €725,951. The projected cost for 2009 represents a reduction of almost 15% on the 2008 cost, 22.5% on the 2007 cost and almost 30% on the 2006 cost. In fact, it is the lowest cost since 2003.
Why is it necessary to second staff from other Departments? Which Departments are involved? I was not aware that staff from other Departments were seconded to the communications unit.
From statements made by the Taoiseach's predecessor on several occasions, my understanding of this unit was that individual Departments were obliged to take cuttings of newspapers and news items relevant to each Department and Minister, for example, the Ministers for Transport or Education and Science. For example, I understood the latter Department not to have a paper cutting service to supply the Minister, Deputy O'Keeffe, every morning because the communications unit in the Department of the Taoiseach was to do all of that. Last year I asked this question because it was evident what was going on. Is it still the case this service is provided in the communications unit and there are no paper-cutting services in other Departments?
I answered this on several occasions. The Deputy appears to have a continuing fixation about it. A review was undertaken to see how we might provide this service most effectively. It is being provided at a lesser cost on a continuous basis as a result of the need to be mindful of expenditure in this or any other departmental area at this time. Individual Ministers also have their own communication service. The public interacts with agencies and bodies and non-governmental organisations. A whole range of people engage daily with Departments on an ongoing basis. That service must be provided in the public interest of providing accurate information and ensuring people have a service to deal with their inquiries.
On a number of occasions, I referred to various replies I have given on this matter. They confirm that, on review, the present arrangements are the most cost effective and it would not be possible to provide the service in any other way.
Which other Departments are represented on the staff of the communications unit in the Taoiseach's Department? There is a cost of €119,000 directly to the Department of the Taoiseach from a sum of €257,000, as the Taoiseach mentioned. Am I to take it there are no separate paper-cutting communications units in the Departments of Transport, Education and Science and all others? I understand the purpose of this unit was to eliminate duplication and overlapping and save the taxpayer money. Is it the case that the two Ministers present, Deputies Noel Dempsey and Batt O'Keeffe, do not have paper cutting services and communications units in their Departments because the Taoiseach has a service that supplies the rest of the Government?
In what form is that information sent to other Departments? Is it by e-mail or in hard copy delivered to other Ministers' offices for dispensation to heads of sections? Does the communications unit listen to radio stations and go through the newspapers every day, taking out relevant information for different Ministers and dispensing it in hard copy? I am trying to be helpful. The Taoiseach does not want an entire body of public servants cutting up papers and transferring them to different Departments if there is one section in his Department that does it for all others. That is what I would like to know.
I can have the details on individual staff costs, and so on sent to the Deputy. The overall objective is to ensure that all parts of Government are aware of key issues across a wide range of media outlets. The media, the Opposition and the citizens expect Ministers and officials to be fully up to date on such issues so that they can respond to them. The situation was assessed by a panel of officials including managers from the Government Information Service, GIS, and the Department's head of information technology. I understand that when a formal tender process was made the bids were in excess of the costs at which we provide the service at present. The present cost of the unit as provided by staff is much cheaper than it would be if done any other way. The unit has a small number of staff and uses cheap but effective technology in addition to the e-mail network for dissemination. The alternative would be to decentralise the function in full to individual Departments. It is clear that this would involve far more duplication, as people across all Departments would have to do what is currently done centrally. The alternative of doing everything centrally is not realistic, given the ongoing need for monitoring items of particular interest in each Department. It cannot be a question of total centralisation or total decentralisation.
Why was it necessary to second staff from other Departments into this unit? It has a small staff and has a specific job. What Departments are represented? Was there a purpose for seconding staff or was it just a matter of finding a job for somebody?
It was a question of putting the team together. We can arrange to get that detail to the Deputy in terms of its cost, etc.
I thank the Taoiseach.
As the Taoiseach stated, we have had questions on the Government's listening post a number of times. The unit listens to the radio, reads the newspapers, takes clippings and cuttings and keeps an eye on what kind of coverage the Government is getting. I was surprised that it did not seem to cross Colm McCarthy's path when he was examining the public service. I could not see a reference to it in the McCarthy report. Would the Taoiseach regard the communications unit as an essential service of Government?
Regarding Dr. McCarthy's committee, he identified €5.4 billion in areas he considered could be modified, eliminated, cutback or whatever out of a total spend — he only dealt with the current programme — of €57 billion. This is an indication that not everything that is being done is something that needs to be changed. Some 90% of what has been looked at throughout all of the programmes were not included for recommendation in the McCarthy report, which puts some perspective on the promulgation of the idea that everything is unnecessary and can be simply washed away, in fairness to the people who work in the service.
Regarding the question, it is important that we have a communications unit that is in a position to provide accurate, up-to-date information from a series of requests, including from Members of this House and elsewhere. The ability to respond effectively and accurately is a particular responsibility of Government and is not one about which the Opposition must care too often.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question on whether he considers the unit to be an essential service of Government. Would he be satisfied to have it used as a benchmark for assessing whether particular services should be discontinued or downsized? For example, we often hear that the Government is contemplating the implementation of at least some of the McCarthy report recommendations and some downsizing or rationalising of the various services provided through Departments. Would the Taoiseach be satisfied to state that the communications unit is not included in the report, is an essential service of Government and should be the measure for all of those services identified by the McCarthy report as suitable for cutbacks?
I do not think that one could measure everything against the communications unit and suggest that it is the benchmark for all Government activity. That would be absurd. There are four staff members in the unit. It is not a major part of the operation. There are two executive officers, one staff officer and a clerical officer. There are also two vacancies I have not filled. I am aware of the need for this work. It is necessary in terms of co-ordinating and getting Departments and people on the outside to know exactly what is the position on various issues.
On the question of putting it out for tender, I authorised a review of the unit independently of the McCarthy deliberations. I did not have to wait for anybody to ask me. I did that because I wanted to see what was the position. When one asked people to tender, the lowest tender was far in excess of what it cost to do the job inside. That should be a good indication of value for money and perhaps an indication that it is being done in as cost-effective a way as possible, that if one were to get others to do it and release these staff for other work, one would, in fact, impose a greater burden on the taxpayer.
I think everyone would agree. Deputy Gilmore would have a press liaison function for his party and for his own business. He could not do his job without it. It is an essential part of his operation. In the same way, there is a need for Government to have a communications unit.
Ministerial Staff.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers as appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30614/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:5 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the duties and responsibilities of the special political advisers as appointed by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32524/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number, role and function of political advisers in his Department; the cost of such advisers since June 2007 to date in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39057/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6 together.
There are currently seven special advisers in my Department. Under the direction of my programme manager, who is my principal special adviser, the primary function of the special advisers is to monitor, facilitate and help secure the achievement of Government objectives and to ensure effective co-ordination in the implementation of the programme for Government.
The role and duties of special advisers are described in section 11 of the Public Service Management Act 1997. In summary, these are providing advice, monitoring, facilitating and securing the achievement of Government objectives that relate to the Department, as requested; and performing such other functions as may be directed.
Special advisers are also tasked with giving me advice and keeping me informed on a wide range of issues, including business, financial, economic, political, environmental, administrative and media matters, and performing such other functions as may be directed by me from time to time. In addition, a number of my advisers have specific responsibilities in speech drafting.
Each of the advisers liaises with a number of Departments and acts as a point of contact in my office for Ministers and their advisers. My advisers attend meetings of Cabinet committees and cross-departmental teams relevant to their responsibilities. They also liaise, on my behalf, with organisations and interest groups outside Government.
The advisers assigned to the Government Chief Whip and to the Minister of State provide advice to the Ministers of State and monitor, facilitate and secure the achievement of Government objectives that relate to the Department of the Taoiseach, as requested by the Ministers of State. My programme manager meets other ministerial advisers on a weekly basis. He monitors and reports to me on progress on that work as well.
The total salary cost since June 2007 to date for the special advisers attached to my Department is €2,798,870.
The front page of one of the national newspapers today sets out clearly the scale of payment by Government to special advisers, media advisers and other personally appointed staff. It is interesting to note that the Government spent €6.2 million in 2008 on special advisers, media advisers and other such persons — one would build a few schools for that.
The Taoiseach stated €2.7 million is the cost since June 2007 to date and that the purpose of these advisers is to facilitate, monitor and secure Government objectives. I am not sure how successful they have been. Are these special advisers subject to reductions in salary the same as everybody else? Are they subject to the income levy because of bonuses and increments that they receive?
I mean no disrespect to the person involved, but how, for example, does the Taoiseach justify an increase of €10,000 in the salary of somebody who writes scripts for the Taoiseach and who was employed by his predecessor? The person's salary, I understand, was €118,000 in 2007 and the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, when appointed increased it to €128,000.
How much was it earlier?
I understand it is €128,000. It was €118,000 in 2007 and after the Taoiseach's appointment, it increased by €10,000 to €128,000. Is there a particular reason for that or was it based on bonus, increments or whatever?
Are all of these positions subject to the recruitment embargo? If, for some reason, a political, special or media adviser happens to be let go or retires from the Department of the Taoiseach, is that subject to the ban on recruitment as well?
There are no bonuses in relation to these payments. They are appointed at a certain salary scale depending on their responsibilities. I did not make any arrangements for increases. These increases presumably arise as a result of people moving into other increments. In other words, whatever rules apply also apply to them. As regards the recruitment embargo, these people take up the job in line with the tenure of the Government of the day, so they leave office when the Government's term ends. In that respect, therefore, they will not have the same terms of employment as people in the public service generally.
As the Deputy knows, this system was first introduced back in 1992 during the Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition Government. It has remained with us throughout every period of Government since then. The Deputy made a point about the cost of advisers. Given a total pay and pensions bill of almost €20 billion, the idea that Ministers or other office holders would have advisers, whose tenure coincides with their own term in office for the purpose of providing supplemental or independent advice to the Department and assisting and liaising in respect of whatever jobs and responsibilities they have, puts in context the fact that this is a very small part of the total Government operation. It was introduced at the time for a good purpose and obviously it must be kept under review at all times. Under the Public Service Management Act, there is no limit on the number of advisers a Taoiseach can appoint, but there are arrangements in place regarding Ministers.
I recall the appointment of what were then known as programme managers back in the rainbow Government's time. By and large, that system streamlined work going into the Cabinet where there might have been differences of opinion or a range of views being expressed by different Ministers, particularly when a number of parties constituted the Government. It had a streamlining effect on putting business through.
I did not catch the Taoiseach's answer to the question on advisers having to leave for some reason or other. It may be as a result of tragic circumstances or perhaps somebody wants to leave for a different job. Is there a facility to reappoint or is such a vacancy subject to the embargo?
I understand that the Department of Health and Children came second to the Department of the Taoiseach with a spend of €514,000 on advisers in 2008. When I asked this question of the previous Taoiseach, he always said that in this case the advisers are paid through the Department of the Taoiseach because the Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, was the leader of a minority party in Government. That is no longer the case, however, as she is effectively an Independent Deputy. Therefore, the adviser or programme manager involved remains in the Department of Health and Children, but is paid for by the Department of the Taoiseach. The title has been changed to that of a special adviser with responsibility for health and children. What is the justification now for having a special adviser to the Minister for Health and Children paid for through the Department of the Taoiseach when the Minister involved is no longer the leader of a minority party in Government? That was the justification given for it on so many occasions in the past. Does this not amount purely to a presentation of massaged figures to avoid a situation where the Minister for Health and Children continues to have exorbitant moneys for running her Department?
Is there a reason this set of advisers is paid for by the taxpayer through the Department of the Taoiseach when its function pertains to the Minister for Health and Children? There is no longer any justification for this given that the Minister for Health and Children is no longer the leader of a minority party in government. The cost in 2008 was €514,000. One would build another school for that amount.
Although the Deputy mentioned the cost and stated one could build another school for this or that, the fact is that advisers add value to the work of an Administration. They assist in making sure policies are being implemented and they comprise a very small part of the overall Government operation.
I accept that.
Making a pejorative remark about it is to suggest that this is a valueless exercise; it is not. It is the second time the Deputy suggested that it is valueless.
The money would build another school. The advice they have given the Minister——
That is the Deputy's view. He is entitled to his view on it and can play the populist game. There is no problem with that. The fact is that these people are——
It is not a populist game but a fact.
Please allow the Taoiseach to continue.
The Deputy is on both sides of the fence, as usual. He referred to how important it was to have advisers when his party was in power but now that he is in opposition and I am in Government, he suggests there should be none at all. That is the true position and there is nothing more to it.
I said it streamlined the system, but what has happened here——
If he can get a line in a tabloid newspaper that gives him a big figure——
They were not paid for by the Department of the Taoiseach.
——the Deputy will be delighted with himself. He will get another big picture in the paper.
It is a question of the advisers being paid for by the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Deputy knows what the game is.
He is paying the adviser——
Let us deal with the issue seriously.
The Taoiseach should deal with it seriously.
I will.
He is paying an adviser to the Department of Health and Children.
In respect of the work of the Department of Health and Children, I indicated to the Deputy that I act as chairman of the Cabinet sub-committee on health. I have an interest in health.
The Taoiseach is paying the adviser to the Minister for Health and Children.
As Taoiseach and as co-ordinator of Government activity, I deal with health matters. It is a very important area of activity.
Absolutely.
The value added in this regard is well worthwhile.
But the Taoiseach is paying the adviser to the Minister for Health and Children.
The role is assigned to my Department in regard to health matters; that is correct. It is paid for from my Department and the work in question continues and is necessary. The total budget for the Department of Health and Children is €14 billion. If the Minister wishes——
The Taoiseach said the adviser was paid because the Minister was a minority leader.
Deputy Kenny should allow the Taoiseach to continue.
The work is necessary and the adviser is assigned to my Department. In addition to the Minister for Health and Children, I am involved in health matters and I chair the Cabinet sub-committee on health, which meets very regularly.
The Taoiseach said it was Angola so it is no wonder he is interested in it.
Sorry?
The Taoiseach said it was like Angola so it is just as well——
I did not. The Deputy does not know what I was referring to. I was not referring to what the Deputy is suggesting I was referring to.
The Taoiseach said the Department of Health and Children was like Angola.
I am sorry there are not a few more to take Deputy Kenny's quotes but I am sure they will pick it up at some stage and see a few of them.
It is not my quotation but that of the Taoiseach.
If the Deputy does not know what the quotation is about, why make it? If one wants to quote something, one should know what one is talking about.
He referred to it as Angola.
I did not refer to the Department as Angola. I referred to the fact that, although one can leave on a Friday evening with a clear desk——
The Taoiseach should not be backtracking.
——one can trip over a mine and have something arise from left-field that no one ever mentioned. One must deal with it. I will defend my time in the Department any time the Deputy wishes. If he has any issue he wants to raise with me in respect of my tenure in the Department, he should fee free to do so. He should feel free to table a question any time.
I commend the Taoiseach on retaining an interest in it.
I have no problem dealing with my tenure in the Department of Health and Children.
I ask that the Taoiseach be allowed to continue without interruption.
I enjoyed it quite a lot. It was a very challenging Department. I have some understanding of the workload involved and of how issues can arise in the Department. I have some understanding of how, despite the best efforts of everybody, unexpected issues can arise in respect of which people would not be on notice, yet one is expected to have immediate and detailed replies in every respect. That is not often possible. That is the point I was making, but of course it has been conveyed in a different way by others for their own political purposes.
Let me return to the point. The point we are talking about relates to recruitment embargoes and other issues raised by the Deputy. The question of the appointment of special advisers is subject to guidelines outlined by the Department of Finance in respect of staff taken into the private offices of Ministers. One must obviously comply with those arrangements. That is what is done in the case in question, just as it was done under preceding Governments.
The Taoiseach stated the system pertaining to programme managers and special advisers dates from the early 1990s. I am sure he will recall that, at that stage, the idea was that there would be a single programme manager for each Department or Minister and a single adviser for each Minister, the idea being that the programme managers would drive the implementation of the programme for Government and the advisers would provide advice on policy areas. However, this seems to have mushroomed considerably during Fianna Fáil's term in office. I wish to put two issues to the Taoiseach, the first is that the numbers seem to have grown substantially, and the second is that the salaries seem to have grown. Today's Irish Independent refers to the salary for the top adviser, the programme manager to the Taoiseach, having doubled in the past ten years. Looking down the list of advisers that was published in the Irish Independent today, in the Taoiseach’s Department a programme manager appears to be on a salary pretty close to the Secretary General of a Department. Two special advisers are on salaries the equivalent of deputy Secretary General. Two other advisers appear to be on salaries that are pretty close to that of an assistant Secretary General. The salaries of a further two advisers approximate to the salary of a principal officer. That appears to be an entirely parallel administration. Why is there requirement for such a number of programme managers and special advisers? When the practice began there was only one, but this is as many if not more than the number of deputy secretaries general and assistant secretaries general operating in the Department in the normal way. Surely there is huge duplication of activity between the normal Civil Service and the Fianna Fáil civil service——
It is not.
——which is operating purely for the Taoiseach on a political basis, all of it at taxpayers' expense? To say that €2.7 million, or whatever was the cost since 2007, is small money begs the question of what type of advice they have been giving the Government since then.
I do not agree with a few of the points made by the Deputy. I did not say it was small money; I said in the overall context of a total public service pay bill of €20 billion it is important when emphasis is put on the cost of special advisers that we see that it is a very small part of the total public service operation, both in the Civil Service and the wider public service. That is a matter of fact.
I appreciate the fact that Deputy Gilmore was not a member of the Labour Party when the system started, but the first leader of the Labour Party who introduced it had more than one adviser. He had three advisers. I well remember when Deputy Gilmore was preferred with a Ministry in the then Department of the Marine, he had an adviser. The Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, is in the same position in the same Department and he does not have an adviser. The proliferation seems to be selective depending on the circumstances of who Deputy Gilmore wants to talk about.
On a wider point on pay rates, which is an important one, the remuneration is related to specific Civil Service grades. The fact that there has been an increase in the past decade is an indication of the increase in salaries that have occurred within Civil Service grades. The suggestion that they were arbitrarily increased without reference to any guideline or, as the Deputy tried to imply, were some preferential parallel arrangement is incorrect. That should not be put on the record as having any substance in fact. The positions relate to existing grades. That has always been the case. There is no change in the situation.
Deputy Gilmore suggested that it all started off with one adviser per Minister. I made the point that a predecessor of the Deputy's quite rightly had more than one adviser. Otherwise, he would not have been able to do his job in the Tánaiste's office as it was wider than simply having a ministerial job. He took on those people. I am sure he was well served by them and would regard their appointments as having been justified in all the circumstances, not because one wishes to be profligate with taxpayers' money but one needs to ensure that there is independent and other advice available within Departments. One sometimes hears from the Opposition that I listen to those in my Department and to no one else, or that I am not making any arrangements to determine the other side of the argument. No matter what way one turns it appears there is an argument to be made. That is the nature of our adversarial politics but the fact is that for the past 17 years of Government in this country we have consistently had such arrangements. I agree we must ensure that people do their job responsibly and well. They are brought in by Ministers. Their tenure is in line with the Minister's tenure. Their pay is in line with established Civil Service grades and refers to their level of responsibility or whatever workload they take on. That has been the case for successive Governments and it will probably be the case for future Governments.
I did not question the necessity for programme managers and advisers. I accept that is necessary and that the Government has to have independent advice. What I am questioning is the numbers and from where the salaries came. It is not the case that programme managers were always paid the same salary as a Secretary General of a Department. I want to ask the Taoiseach two questions. First, when was the decision made to link the salary of a programme manager to that of a Secretary General of a Department? Second, given that it was not the case that special advisers were always paid the same as a deputy Secretary General of a Department, will the Taoiseach indicate when that decision was taken and how long have those two posts been linked to the two most senior posts in the Civil Service structure?
I do not have that information. I have no problem in finding it out for the Deputy. The Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 obviously post-dates the introduction. When the introduction of these posts came into place I am sure they were aligned with some range of responsibilities and subsequently——
It was around principal officer level.
No, I believe it was higher than that, with respect.
It was not Secretary General.
There is no point in me giving an opinion or reflecting back that far without checking out the facts. I can get them for the Deputy.
Regulatory Reform.
Enda Kenny
Question:7 Deputy Enda 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. [30618/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made 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. [32525/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
The Government published the White Paper, Regulating Better, in 2004. It provides a framework for advancing the better regulation agenda in Ireland. Some of the recommendations and actions outlined in the OECD report and the White Paper relate specifically to individual sectors and relevant Ministers are responsible for reporting directly to the House in regard to them.
The better regulation unit in my Department is tasked with the promotion of the better regulation agenda across Government. In this context, it is currently co-ordinating the Government input to the review of Ireland's regulatory systems and processes being undertaken by the OECD. The review is being conducted as part of a set of similar reviews covering the original 15 EU member states which is being funded by the EU Commission and covers issues such as regulatory impact analysis, administrative burden reduction and approaches to enforcement.
I would like to also briefly refer to other work the unit is carrying out. It recently published a Government Statement on economic regulation providing a framework for the future development of economic regulation in Ireland. It covers issues such as governance and accountability; the appropriateness of structures and mandates; cost effectiveness and engagement with stakeholders. Particular actions include the establishment of a forum which will provide a direct interface on a yearly basis for senior Ministers and key economic regulators to discuss Government priorities and enhance the responsiveness of the regulatory environment to changing economic and social factors. In addition, relevant Ministers will now be statutorily required to review the roles and mandates of regulators every five years. Ministers will also approve planned expenditure by regulators, including any industry levies, following consultation with stakeholders. In the aviation sector, the Minister for Transport will bring forward legislation to merge the Commission for Aviation Regulation and the regulatory functions of the Irish Aviation Authority with the planned National Transport Authority.
Work is also continuing on the Statute Law Revision Project, which is steered by my Department in partnership with the Office of the Attorney General. The Statute Law Revision Bill 2009 recently completed Committee Stage in this House and deals with local and personal Acts up to and including the year 1850 and private Acts up to and including the year 1750. The Minister of State, Deputy Carey, expects to bring forward the Bill on Report and Final Stage this Thursday. These private Acts are those which are concerned with the affairs of a single individual or body, and local and personal Acts are concerned with matters affecting a very limited section of the community such as a single local authority or company. The current Bill provides for the express repeal of more than 1,350 such Acts. This is in addition to the almost 3,500 public and general Acts which were already repealed by the Statute Law Revision Acts of 2005 and 2007.
In addition to the work being undertaken on statute law revision, individual Ministers are also undertaking significant consolidation projects including in the key areas of company law and customs legislation. Revised RIA guidelines have now been published and take account, in particular, of the need for improved quantitative analysis and for the increased use of RIA to evaluate draft EU legislative proposals.
Have we done any work on a baseline study of the cost of red tape in Irish industry? Every day, Members are being contacted by businesses in various sectors and inevitably red tape arises as an issue, with more form filling and administrative obstacles of one sort or another. Since we last discussed this, I raised the question of a baseline study that would show the cost of red tape for Irish industry. Is there any such study or is work under way on one? The Taoiseach could then point out to business anywhere in the country his assessment of the cost of red tape and how it is proposed to deal with it.
There is a process in place regarding the reduction of administrative burdens and a group on business regulation is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. It has set out a programme of work that would seek to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden significantly.
The question of regulation constantly arises. On the one hand, one needs efficient and effective public administration in the interests of public accountability and to avoid arbitrary decision making. On the other hand, as one sought to address business issues in the financial services area and Ireland sought a competitive advantage creating employment in that area, light touch regulation brought its own difficulties when wider issues came into play when the whole financial market almost came to collapse.
One sees in EU regulatory discussions and wider discussions with other financial markets and regulatory authorities, the need to ensure a greater degree of oversight and accountability in that area, given that what was seen as financial innovation increased risk factors and brought about a situation where the whole remuneration structure and the means by which financial services were applied meant that we saw a lot of activity that increased the risk of what happened happening. By the time regulatory authorities get to the point where they know what is going on, the harm is done and we then must deal with the impact and retrieve the situation, often causing great economic disturbance and turmoil.
The question of finding the right level of effective regulation is an important principle of public accountability but by the same token we must avoid and deal with instances where bureaucratic procedures are built up over time that fail to take account of the need for more expeditious responses to people's application or requirement for consent or approval to get on with doing their business.
I agree with the Taoiseach's comment about getting the right balance for effective regulation. Regulation that was too loose caused mayhem that we are now dealing with.
The recent OECD economic survey of Ireland made two points. It indicated that we should move to a single agency to deal with employment and unemployment. This concerns the work of FÁS and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Given the extent of the regulation that exists, is the Taoiseach of the view that this should be done? Clearly, there are cost implications where money may be saved, either by outsourcing training courses or giving them to the VECs, as distinct from the cost of FÁS at the moment.
In its economic report the OECD also recommends the removal of unnecessarily restrictive regulations, strengthening competition policy and changes to planning laws, with particular reference to the legal profession, pharmacies, doctors and pubs, in addition to the network industries. I am sure the Taoiseach has taken note of the report. Perhaps we might get a response at the next Question Time to some of the points it has raised as regards reducing the administrative regulatory burden on business.
We seem to have the worst of both worlds with regard to regulation. While the Government has been looking at all the reports on better regulation, with more and more working groups examining this question, people in business are being tortured with filling forms and trying to respond to one agency or regulatory body after another. The quantity of regulation does not seem to equate with the quality, an example being the regulation of the banks. Where stands regulation of the banks today in circumstances where one financial institution has decided it is going to appoint the same person as chairman and chief executive, and where a new managing director is being appointed at a salary level in access of what the Government says it should be? Is there regulation of the banks, or now that the print is drying on the NAMA legislation, are they again free to go back to doing as they like?
The Minister for Finance has been outlining the Government position on the second matter Deputy Gilmore has raised in an earlier programme.
With regard to the questions raised by Deputy Kenny on the question of outsourcing and using private companies for the purposes of training programmes, to work in partnership is a good thing, although there have been some recent controversies in this regard where the certification processes were not what they should have been. The question of proper oversight when other agents act on behalf of statutory authorities for the provision of training is again an important aspect of regulation. Work cannot simply be farmed out without the statutory authority being in a position to properly oversee it and ensure that standards are being maintained and regulated.
With regard to the Competition Authority, there have been a number of interim reports in respect of certain professions and some of the recommendations have been acted upon. I understand the final is due in the middle of next year. Any specific regulatory matters raised which are the responsibility of particular Ministers, should elicit replies from them through the parliamentary question procedure.