Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the files released recently by his Department under the National Archives Act 1986; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48394/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Records.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department from the National Archives in respect of the year 1979; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48398/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of files withheld by his Department in respect of the files transferred to the National Archives in respect of the year 1979; the number 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. [1279/10]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of files from his Department released under the National Archives Act; the number withheld regarding the year 1979; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3458/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, 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. As files are processed for release each year, it is normal that some are certified by the appropriate officials for retention on the grounds set forth in the Act. Some 805 files, or file parts, were transferred to the National Archives to be released for public inspection on 1 January 2010. Five files were withheld.
Of the five files withheld, four were withheld under sections 8(4)(b) and 8(4)(c) and one was withheld under sections 8(4)(a), 8(4)(b) and 8(4)(c). Files can be withheld under section 8(4)(a) on public interest grounds. Files can be withheld under section 8(4)(b) if they pertain to information obtained in confidence. Files can be withheld under section 8(4)(c) if their release may cause distress, danger or defamation. In the case of the Northern Ireland files, 86 files were released and no files were withheld in full. Some 56 files were released without any abstractions while 30 files contained documents which were either abstracted or had partial abstractions made on them.
In total, 119 entire documents were held from 23 files and partial abstractions were made on 26 documents from 20 files. Abstractions were made under section 8(4)(a), 8(4)(b) and 8(4)(c). The abstractions related to certain security information, reports of confidential discussions and certain personal information.
I remember well 27 August 1979 when the assassination of Lord Mountbatten took place and 18 British soldiers were killed by two IRA landmines at Warrenpoint, County Down. I also recall the arrest of several people involved in the Mullaghmore bomb by Garda James Lohan at Granard later that day.
The situation has moved on greatly in that time and everyone is pleased with developments over the past number of years. Is the Taoiseach concerned, however, about the resurrection of dissident republicans? The bomb in Newry yesterday was potentially catastrophic for the ongoing peace discussions on the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. I have raised this matter with the Taoiseach over the past several months. Is he happy with the level of co-operation that exists between the Garda and the PSNI, which I understand is at a very high level? Has he been briefed on the extent of recruitment of young and vulnerable males, in particular, in this jurisdiction to join the dissident republican movement? Is he in possession of information from the security and intelligence forces that will allow the Garda and the PSNI to work together to put an end to this?
I note in 1979 that the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, contemplated sanctions against Irish people living in Britain, such as withdrawing their opportunity to vote in British elections, if there was not greater co-operation between the security forces. In the end, they were never proceeded with but, given that this was considered over 30 years ago, does the Taoiseach have a view on the use of Irish passports in an assassination in the United Arab Emirates a week ago? Has the Taoiseach been fully briefed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs? Is the Minister happy that the Israeli Government was not involved in this? Has the Taoiseach been briefed on the ongoing security measures that can be taken for protecting passports?
I must add for the benefit of the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who is sitting next to the Taoiseach that this does arise in a question on the National Archives. We learn lessons from the past, as I am sure he does too.
A Cheann Comhairle, as the questions relate to the National Archives Act, I do not have any supplementary material on issues other than that. That said, the bomb that went off in Newry must be condemned out of hand. The security co-operation between the Garda and the PSNI is at an all-time high. I met with both the PSNI Chief Constable and the Garda Commissioner only yesterday at an aside meeting of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly plenary session. They both reported on the level of co-operation, which I know from both of them directly is regarded as being at an optimum.
I do not have supplementary information on the other matter raised but the Minister for Foreign Affairs has made the Government's position clear on it.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the problem of physical storage space for the National Archives? It should not be a problem considering so much space is available which would be up to standard for housing archival material. They can be then readily available to students, historians or members of the public who are inclined to look at them. The situation is very poor and the archive needs extra space.
What is the position of historic Irish manuscripts held abroad in monasteries and various universities? I understand there are 1,100 authentic Irish manuscripts dating back to the Middle Ages, many of which are beginning to deteriorate in the monasteries and universities where they are held. In the interests of our country it would be appropriate that a full-scale survey is carried out by the National Archives, under the Department of the Taoiseach, so that these can be preserved and retained for future generations of Irish people. For example, the annals of Inis Fallen are held in Oxford and were sent to Kerry for a few weeks a number of years ago. My understanding is that there are 1,100 of these, some of which have been untouched for years and which are starting to disintegrate and deteriorate. In the interests of the country and those who come behind us, the Taoiseach might take an interest in this to see whether a scoping exercise, as they call it these days, can ascertain the scale of this, where the manuscripts are, their condition, and to make arrangements with the authorities in those countries to preserve if not return the manuscripts. I would like to see them in Ireland at the end of the day.
The principal National Archive storage accommodation is located at the headquarters offices at Bishop Street and the Four Courts. It is acknowledged that the National Archives suffer from a long-standing storage challenge on a constrained site. While efforts have been made to accommodate the State records within its Bishop Street premises, the accommodation currently available is unsatisfactory. Under the current economic circumstances, the planned major capital investment to redevelop the entire Bishop Street facility for the National Archives, involving the subsequent closure of its Four Courts storage, is not affordable.
Storage difficulties in the National Archives have been approached from two perspectives. At the instigation of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, the OPW has agreed to produce a short to medium-term solution to the storage and accommodation needs of the archive within the Bishop Street complex. The OPW will prepare proposals and has provided off-site storage for some series of records. In addition, the OPW has indicated it will move certain Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food records still in use, mainly relating to the Land Commission, out of Bishop Street and this will free up space for the National Archives proper. The administrative staffing of the National Archives, which was admittedly relatively small, has been strengthened by the Department in recent times.
The other matter raised by Deputy Kenny is an interesting point. I will ask the director if anything can be done to assess the location of manuscripts that are relevant to our archival heritage and to see if there are ways they can be repatriated and whether there are ownership issues or issues regarding their continued safekeeping. I will ask whether there is anything we can do to supplement the current owners' care for the documents.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about the 30-year rule. This seems to come from a different age. Will the Taoiseach consider whether the time has come to reduce the 30-year rule regarding the release of papers? In other jurisdictions, such as the UK, it has been reduced to 15 years. My colleague, Deputy Mary Upton, has produced a Private Members' Bill proposing its reduction to 15 years. In these days of freedom of information and electronic communication, the 30-year rule appears to be an anachronism. Considering more contemporary issues, it will be 2028 before papers relating to the Good Friday Agreement will be available and 2038 before papers relating to the Government decision to give a blanket guarantee to the banks are released. By that stage people will be living in space ships. There is a need to re-examine the 30 year rule to ensure material is released on a more contemporary basis.
What provision is being made in regard to electronic records? Given much communication now being conducted by way of e-mail and text is stored electronically, is consideration being given to ensuring electronic records will endure — we do not know whether they will — and what plans are in place to ensure the availability of hard copies of electronically stored papers which can in the course of time be obtained as part of the archives released each year?
I am not aware of the position on the electronic aspect of the Deputy's question but I will check it out for him. I do not have available to me supplementary information in that regard.
On the 30 year rule in respect of Cabinet records, it is important to point out that the Constitution provides that the confidentiality of discussions and meetings of Government shall be respected in all circumstances except where the High Court determines that disclosures should be made in the interests of the administration of justice by a court or by virtue of an overriding public interest on foot of an application by a tribunal. Also, the Freedom of Information Act protects without time limit records that contain whole or part of a statement made at a meeting of the Government or information that reveals, or from which may be inferred, the substance of such a statement. Other exemption grounds also exist which may apply to Cabinet records. For example, they may contain material which relates to national security, the President or which is still considered to be commercially sensitive.
In considering FOI requests for Cabinet records, decision makers in Departments must consider each record individually to establish whether it is to be released either in full or in part or not at all taking into account all the requirements and exemptions provided for in the legislation. This is what FOI decision makers have always done since the legislation was first introduced and they will continue to do so in the future.
The passage of ten years since FOI became operational is simply an additional consideration which FOI decision makers must factor into the equation when making their decisions. Legislatively, we have provided a means through which certain information can be provided. However, the question of whether the general principle should be revisited in total would require careful consideration.
I understand that the Government is preparing legislation relating to the National Archives. There is a proposal to merge the National Archives of Ireland, the National Library of Ireland and the Irish Manuscripts Commission. Leaving aside whether that is a good or bad idea, or whether Government attention and resources should be devoted to such an extent on the amalgamation of bodies like that, the introduction of that legislation would provide an opportunity to address the issue of the time limit. The Taoiseach has outlined the exemptions in respect of national security, protection of individuals and so on, which obviously could still apply and which, as he indicated in his first reply, were observed in respect of five files and a number of documents abstracted. It would seem there is no good reason there should be a blanket 30 year rule.
As I stated, the FOI legislation takes into account the constitutional position while at the same time providing for a differentiated approach which remains with the FOI decision-makers who, while independent, seek to comply with the legislation. The legislation envisages a differentiated approach in respect of certain if not all information being provided. It is not a question of all information being blanketed for 30 years or one having to wait 30 years in respect of all information.
On the amalgamation of the various cultural institutions, the Government intends to introduce such a Bill. I understand it may well be the end of the year before that legislation will be before the Houses. Obviously, it will present an opportunity to discuss the detail of the Bill. We have indicated that the National Archives of Ireland, the Irish Manuscripts Commission and the National Library of Ireland of Ireland shall be merged into a new national library and archives of Ireland. This merger will require the amendment of the National Archives Act 1986 and the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997.
The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism proposes to update the relevant archival legislation as part of this process. The new draft legislation deals with three separate existing bodies, abolishes these bodies and establishes a new body. The initial draft of the legislation has been completed and transmitted to the directors of the National Archives of Ireland and the National Library of Ireland, and to the chairman of the Irish Manuscripts Commission for their observation. The matter is in hand and a more detailed debate might best take place in the context of the Bill that is to be brought before the House for consideration.
If the release of new material under the 30-year rule was curtailed this year because there was inadequate space to accommodate that fresh material, what is the extent of the withholding? Does it apply to specific Departments? Does it apply as a percentage of material from all Departments or across the various archive field sources? How much material was withheld this year? Has the proposal to create new space now effectively been abandoned because of the issue of affordability? Where will that leave us in ten months' time when another year's tranche of material will be due for release? What measures is the Government taking to address the situation as pointed up by the experience in January of this year?
At present, there is no National Archives Advisory Council, whose term of office concluded in 2007, and no new council was appointed. Is it the responsibility of the Taoiseach or of another Minister to appoint a new National Archives Advisory Council or where stands the Government on such a body? The National Archives of Ireland website, which is still extant, states:
The National Archives Act, 1986 assigned ministerial responsibility for the National Archives to the Taoiseach. However, on 20 January 1993, the National Archives was transferred from the Department of the Taoiseach to the new Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, which in 1997 was re-named the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. On 18 June 2002, the National Archives was transferred to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism.
That Department would have continued with a substantive area of the previous Departments' designation. However, the website continues to state:
Consequently, most of the functions conferred on the Taoiseach by the National Archives Act are now performed by the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, but the Taoiseach continues to perform certain functions relating to the retention by Departments of Departmental records which are more than 30 years old and the withholding of such records from public inspection.
What are those certain functions? Can the Taoiseach give us a snapshot of his experience in this area in his years as Taoiseach since 2008? Is it his intention to appoint a new National Archives Advisory Council and when does he propose to do so?
As the Deputy said, the functions retained by the Taoiseach relate to those records older than 30 years, which are retained for public interest or other purposes. That is rightly in the domain of the Taoiseach because these are matters of major public interest with serious issues attaching to them. That is a function retained by the Taoiseach. I have never had reason to use it. I do not recall seeing any papers asking me to publish that which had previously been withheld under the relevant section 8(4)(a ),(b) and(c), or all three paragraphs, in respect of documentation I have. The Deputy has just outlined a statement of fact and I have no recollection of having to execute any functions under that particular remit or responsibility.
As regards the question of the National Archives Advisory Council, that was established to advise the Minister on matters of archives under the 1986 Act. As I said in a previous reply, we now have an amalgamation process involving three different institutions. That legislation is proceeding, and therefore I take it that when this Bill is brought forward we shall have an opportunity to see what type of advisory council for all three composite institutions will emerge in the future. Basically, we are in transition towards a new entity.
The Taoiseach did not indicate to me the extent to which material was withheld, consequent on the absence of sufficient space to accommodate the release of material this year. At least this has been reported and I do not note any contradiction in that regard in the Taoiseach's earlier replies. Can he indicate the extent of the withholding, where it applies and whether steps are being taken in the current year to bring forward the release of that material for public access and scrutiny? What steps is the Government taking, having been exposed to the difficulties this year in terms of inadequate space? Could the Taoiseach reconfirm new building arrangements that had previously been signalled are not now to be proceeded with? What is the Government undertaking to do in the coming months to avoid a building heaping up a mound of material year on year into the future?
Finally, in reply to an earlier question, I noted the Taoiseach had indicated that he was not aware of the situation as regards electronic documentation. I have noted that recently in the Seanad, the Minister of State, Deputy Martin Mansergh stated that documents held electronically will not be preserved. I urge the Taoiseach to view electronic documentation as being of equal importance to paper in the current age. It is incumbent on the Taoiseach and the Government to make the required arrangements in order to preserve both. If the Taoiseach is not in a position to comment this afternoon, will he please undertake to come back to each of the party leaders on this particular matter as soon as he has had an opportunity to inform himself?
On the first matter, as I have said I only have information for my Department. Some 805 files were transferred and five were withheld. I have given the details as to why they were withheld. I have indicated in a previous reply that a short to medium-term solution was being provided by the OPW to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism by way of way of Irish Land Commission records being located out of Bishop Street, which will obviously free up space that was not previously available there for the National Archives people. That is a practical solution without the need for a brand new capital programme to relocate all the records. I have already addressed the physical accommodation issue, that has been acknowledged as being unsatisfactory and about which some short-term proposals have been made by the OPW to alleviate the situation, given that the original proposals are now unaffordable.
In terms of electronic records, I do not have the information the Deputy seeks. However, knowing Deputy Martin Mansergh, I am confident that what he said in the Seanad is correct. If the Deputy wants to table a question to me on that, beyond what the policy issues are, I shall be happy to address it.
The Taoiseach is now the acting Minister for Defence. Some 30 years ago, legislation was introduced to allow women to enlist in the Defence Forces. Is there any intention to commemorate the anniversary of the introduction of the Bill to allow women to enlist in the Defence Forces? Can the Taoiseach offer an up-to-date briefing on the numbers in the Defence Forces now and are there plans to increase that number?
Deputy Kenny should submit a parliamentary question.
I am simply asking if there is any intention of marking that event. At the time the Government held the view that the EEC should not be enlarged. Things have changed since then and we are pleased about that.
In 1979, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, Dr. O'Donoghue, proposed that jobs could be provided, as he termed it, to lure women of marriageable age to work on some small Irish islands to prevent the local population dying out. Does the Taoiseach have any comment to make on that proposed policy from a predecessor in the area of economic planning and development?
We are straying somewhat from the issue of the National Archives.
Did he say what they would be working at?
The plan was to lure women of marriageable age to work on some small Irish islands to prevent the local population dying out. I realise they have weekends on Clare Island and Turk and Boffin, but is this Government policy at the moment?
The Deputy will definitely have to table a parliamentary question on that matter.
To which Department?
I am asking because the records were found in the National Archives.
We have found a more sustainable means of maintaining the population on our island communities now, thankfully, and it is as a result of some excellent work by the present incumbent and others who may take credit for it in the intervening period.
Has the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, solved the problem himself?
I would not go that far. I do not think he would claim such profligacy.
I assume it is not Government policy now.
He has been more of an enabler in this area than an active participant. The Deputy should note there will be Department of Defence questions tomorrow.
We will move on.
Will the Taoiseach take the questions or will there be someone new?
Regulatory Reform.
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48396/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in 2010 regarding the implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3180/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
The OECD report Regulatory Reform in Ireland contains a wide range of recommendations. Progress on their implementation has been reported many times in the House since the report's publication, including in the context of the follow-up to the Government's White Paper on regulation Regulating Better. Individual Ministers are responsible for reporting on those recommendations relating to their sectors.
In October of last year, the Government published a Government statement on economic regulation which provides a framework for the future development of economic regulation in Ireland. The statement covers issues such as governance and accountability, the appropriateness of regulatory structures and mandates, cost effectiveness and engagement with stakeholders.
We will provide an obligation on relevant Ministers in legislation to review the roles and mandates of regulators at least every five years. Ministers will also approve planned expenditure by regulators, including any industry levies, following consultation with stakeholders. 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 to create a single transport regulator.
As part of the commitment in the Government statement to initiate an annual regulatory forum, I, together with other Ministers will meet with key regulators, the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency, on Friday of this week to discuss the implementation of the Government statement and the contribution which improved competition and regulation in all sectors can make to economic recovery and renewal. In addition to the work we have undertaken on statute law revision, individual Ministers have also undertaken significant consolidation projects, including in the key areas of company law and customs legislation.
Regulatory impact analysis is a tool used to assess the potential impacts of proposed legislation. It applies to primary legislation as well as to significant EU and secondary legislation. Revised regulatory impact assessment guidelines were published last year and take account of the need for improved quantitative analysis, in particular, and for the increased use of regulatory impact statements to evaluate draft EU legislative proposals.
The better regulation unit of my Department is currently co-ordinating the Government input to the review of Ireland's regulatory systems and processes 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. It is expected that review will be completed later this year.
I was at a meeting in the OECD last weekend with a number of Deputies. The organisation has much objective analysis available to Governments and members of parliaments throughout Europe. Some of it is very valuable.
It is two years since the Government published its commitment to reduce the cost of administrative red tape in business by 25%. Has the Government ever carried out a baseline study of the cost of business in Ireland due to regulation? It is very important given that businesses are drying up by the day, for a variety of reasons. Has the Taoiseach received a report on how far the Government has advanced in bringing about the 25% reduction in red tape for business?
Has the Government considered reducing government costs, be they associated with regulation or applications for licences? Businesses state these costs are the cause of severe difficulties for them at a time of financial pressure. What has the Government done to consider the cost of doing business and has it any intention of reducing costs, such as the costs of regulation, applications for licences and the associated red tape, in areas in which it clearly has an input?
There have been a number. As I said in my reply, there are specific questions to be asked about specific Departments. Questions on the effectiveness of certain regulatory arrangements would be best addressed to the Ministers concerned. On the matter raised by Deputy Kenny, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is leading the project and has measured administrative burdens in its three main areas of legislation that have an impact on business, namely, company law, employment law and health and safety law. The final draft results of that measurement exercise were validated by business in December 2009. These results form the basis of plans in those three areas regarding how to better simplify the arrangements. It is envisaged that a similar process will follow measurement in the other participating Departments.
Five priority areas have been identified by Irish businesses as being the most burdened. These include taxation, health and safety, environment law, statistical returns, and employment and company law. It is in line with the commitment in the programme for Government to ensure direct feedback from business on regulatory burdens.
The first report of the high-level group on business regulation, published in March 2008, indicates a number of individual administrative burdens were measured, identifying over €20 million in savings for business. The group is working across Government to support co-operation between Departments and agencies with a view to simplifying procedures and reducing duplication. This work will continue to result in the reduction of costs for business and identify opportunities for meaningful efficiency improvements in the public sector.
One of the recommendations of the original OECD report, which was implemented by the Government, was the abolition of the groceries order. That was supposed to promote greater competition, a reduction in prices and better value for the consumer. We now find that big multiples, such as Tesco, are extracting or seeking to extract large sums of money from Irish suppliers just to put their products on their shelves. A report last week suggested the multiples are trying to get €500,000 per time from Irish suppliers in order to stock their products. Has this practice been drawn to the attention of the Taoiseach and how will it be dealt with? Some sectors of the business community are encountering difficulties associated with over-regulation, or certainly over-enthusiastic regulation, and other sectors, such as the one I have described, are not subject to any regulation.
Again, the specific sectoral issues that arise should be addressed to the Minister concerned. Thankfully, prices came down last year and all the statistical data confirm that. Whether that can be totally accounted for by the abolition of the groceries order is a moot point but it is a fact that food prices have come down. With regard to the issue of "Hello" money, I understand the National Consumer Agency has been pursuing this matter but proof is not as easily obtained evidentially as it is anecdotally. One understands that there might well be pressures on suppliers as to how frank or candid they might be on this, but clearly it is a practice, if it exists in any area of the retail trade or in the abuse of a dominant position by large multiples, which cannot be condoned in any circumstances.
I appreciate that the Taoiseach does not condone it but we have a situation where, particularly in the grocery sector, a couple of very large supermarket multiples are dominating the market. They are using that dominance to adopt all types of unfair practices against suppliers. The Taoiseach is correct that it is difficult to get proof. Suppliers are afraid to tell what they know about what is happening because they are afraid their produce will simply not be stocked, which is not an option in these times. The Tánaiste, in reply to my question about this last Thursday, said a draft code of practice has been in her Department for some time. I understand it is her intention to implement that code of practice but not on a statutory basis. That will not do the trick. This must be dealt with in a very forceful way.
The other issue I wish to raise is the position of the Law Reform Commission. On the last occasion that he replied to these questions the Taoiseach referred to the work being done by the commission in respect of a programme of statute law restatement. The an bord snip nua report recommended the abolition of the Law Reform Commission. What is the Government's position with regard to the commission? Is it intended to abolish it? What is its intended future? I note that the chairperson of the commission was recently re-appointed for a 12-month period. What is the long-term intention regarding the Law Reform Commission?
The Deputy will be aware that, having acknowledged that €4 billion in savings was required in the last budget, a series of proposals was put forward by a body established by the Minister for Finance, which included that recommendation. It was not taken up on this occasion by the Government. Obviously, there are further adjustments to be made in future budgets and I cannot anticipate the outcome of those Cabinet discussions.
The original purpose for which the Law Reform Commission was established, to modernise our legal framework and to assist in bringing forward proposals and initiatives, has served us reasonably well. There was varying success and varying degrees of productivity, outcome and relevance depending on the chairperson and, indeed, the staff that occupy an organisation at any given time. If memory serves, the commission was established in the 1960s. As a law practitioner myself, I recognise that it has been a force for good in terms of modernising the law. It has done some very good academic and other work in proposing areas of law that require modernisation and updating. Mrs. Justice McGuinness has been re-appointed for a further year so obviously the chairmanship will proceed into next year and she was agreeable to that. We will deal with the matter as a budgetary issue from time to time but I cannot, nor should I, give a blanket confirmation of all these agencies being available in their current form given the budgetary challenges we face.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the entire regulatory reform agenda needs to be re-assessed? Is he aware the Government website on this matter states:
[R]egulatory reform is helping Ireland to manage the consequences of fast growth and to build new capacities to sustain growth into the future. For example, regulatory reform is seen as a way to open up important infrastructure and policy bottlenecks.
It also speaks of labour shortages. I suggest it is written for different times than the very difficult economic circumstances in which we are currently. Would the Taoiseach indicate that this issue will be revisited? I have seen this — it is exemplified on many occasions — as part of a failed policy in support of the privatisation of public services, because time after time it has been suggested public is bad and private is good. Would the Taoiseach see as completely unacceptable the policy of the European Union, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, has led to local authorities in this State having their VAT exemption taken from them in the Finance Bill? It was done under the guise of so-called benefits to the consumer and to foster competition. The reality is this will lead to greater costs for the consumer. It will not result in reduced costs for the individual consumer regarding the services currently provided by local authorities. We will see this policy unfold over the time ahead.
On the matter raised by Deputy Gilmore regarding retail practices, the Taoiseach may be correct in stating prices have reduced. He is definitely correct when he said evidential proof is much more difficult to get than anecdotal evidence. I conducted a survey among vegetable growers in the country. One response stated: "I will not give my name. Welcome to the world of supermarket supply where a shut mouth is necessary to feed your family". It is high time we went beyond the notion that we can have a voluntary code of practice. We have to put some more substantial in place. The Taoiseach is worried about job creation. Job losses will happen around the country in the agrifood supply sector if we do not do something about it, sooner rather than later.
I recently heard an interview with the new IFA president who commended the Tánaiste for the work she was doing in this area and acknowledged this was an issue which had to be continued to be pursued with the multiples. The whole question of a fair price being provided and Irish producers having fair access to the shelves of Irish supermarkets is a very important priority for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Mary Coughlan. The need for the avoidance of sharp practice and unethical behaviour is something which needs to be transparently available for everyone to see.
I agree there are a lot of market pressures on people who, anecdotally, can clearly say certain things in private but are not in a position to pursue them through a legal remedy for reasons which are obvious. That shows the imbalance of power between the producer and retailer in this area. It is a phenomenon with which primary producers across Europe have to contend. We are finding that happens, in particular with the advent of British multiples coming to Ireland. Their distribution arrangements, in terms of where they source their products, how they bring them in and where they bring them from, is a huge issue and one which about which we have to continue to be vigilant and supportive of everybody who is trying to ensure Irish producers get a fair deal in this situation. No one is looking for anything other than competitive, fair competition in all respects.
Regarding Deputy Ó Caoláin's comments, regulation is in place to facilitate competition and to provide a better and more diverse range of services for the public. With regard to that situation there is competition in place and under that directive the requirement to have a level playing field requires that VAT be payable on services provided. I do not believe that is the case if the local authority is in a monopoly position. It is a question of having to implement the VAT directives and that is one of the disciplines we must undertake in view of our access to a single European market. The Single Market provides us with a huge host of opportunities for exporting our products.