Vol. 642 No. 1
1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if all of the recommendations made in the Sullivan report, following the A case have been implemented in the Attorney General’s office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19884/07]
2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of reports submitted to date by the three person panel of experts who were appointed in the aftermath of the A case to advise upon and review, twice yearly, risk management procedures within the Office of the Attorney General; the recommendations made in the reports; if it is intended to publish these reports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19885/07]
3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Sullivan report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22410/07]
4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on changes in the Attorney General’s office in view of the A case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25356/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
In reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, on 1 November 2006, I stated substantial progress had been made in implementing the recommendations of the Sullivan report. Further progress has been made since. Implementation of the recommendations of the report formed part of the Attorney General office's action plan under the Towards 2016 performance verification process and progress reported to the Civil Service performance verification group, with the progress reports published on the office's website.
Specific developments in implementing the Sullivan report include a review by a number of advisory counsel of risk management procedures for sensitive cases within the advisory groups regular legal MAC meetings since 11 October 2006; three reports to the Government on sensitive and constitutional cases since October 2006; six secondments of advisory counsel grade III made to Departments and more recruited by the Office of the Attorney General for training prior to secondment; discussions have advanced between the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions about the transfer of responsibility for fisheries prosecution to the latter office; and the transfer of administration of the Attorney General's scheme to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform from 1 February this year.
The three-person panel of external experts, risk management group, appointed in June 2006 by the Attorney General made their initial report on 17 July this year. As it is an initial report, it is not intended to publish it. The report details 11 key findings and related recommendations arising from their review and examination of systems. The recommendations revolve around issues of overview of sensitive cases, arrangements to identify and monitor sensitive cases, file maintenance and management, technology supports and diary alert systems, with collaboration and notification arrangements across the office. The recommendations have been or are being implemented. Further consultation with the group will take place as necessary. In its 2007 annual report, to be published early in 2008, the Office of the Attorney General will report further on the implementation of the Sullivan report, as well as report progress to the Civil Service performance verification group.
Following the publication of the Sullivan report, the Taoiseach informed the House he would appoint a special rapporteur on child protection who, among other matters, would keep under review and audit legal developments for the protection of children. Two people were appointed to carry out that function. One of the commitments given by the Taoiseach at the time was that they would prepare a report annually setting out the details of their work, which would be submitted to the Dáil and Seanad for debate. No such report has been submitted. Therefore, we have not had an opportunity to debate the issue. Have the rapporteurs made a report? If so, when will it be laid before the House?
The rapporteurs are in place and have been actively involved. References were made in the Attorney General's annual report and, as I said, there will also be an update early next year. If the decision was that they were to present a report to the House, I will have to check that matter because I cannot recall seeing a published report, but perhaps I am wrong. However, the rapporteurs are in place and have been actively involved but I am not certain whether they presented a report.
The A case was very controversial at the time and on 7 June last year the Taoiseach made a commitment that a special rapporteur for child protection would be appointed. My understanding from the Oireachtas Library yesterday is that the report has not been presented. A recommendation for the establishment of a legal MAC which the Attorney General would attend was also made. Has it been established? If so, how often does it meet?
Yes, it has operated since October 2006 and all relevant issues in the Attorney General's office are discussed. The process is that cases of importance are brought to it. While hundreds of cases challenging legislation or statutory instruments are current at any one time, the key cases, as per the Sullivan report, are brought forward to the legal MAC. I understand the Government receives a report from it on cases of importance not quarterly but three times a year. As Deputy Gilmore is aware, 19 measures were adopted from the Sullivan report to minimise the risk of a recurrence of that serious event. Most of those measures related to enhanced risk assessment procedures, including external review of risk assessment procedures, and at group level assigning responsibility for risk assessment to a member of each group in respect of cases being processed by it. They report under new management procedures, including the establishment of the legal MAC which the Deputy mentioned, to focus on the current legal issues. The idea for the establishment of the legal MAC was to concentrate not on the administrative but on the legal issues. The administrative issues are clearly being dealt with in the normal way by the Secretary General of the Attorney General's office. The legal MAC was set up to concentrate on the legal issues coming forward from the examination of the procedures, and this is happening.
There was also to be further enhancement of the information communications technology system, including the provision of a risk register at case level, so that the case handler would be prompted to assess the risks in the opening of a case and at suitable checkpoints. I understand that all these issues are being undertaken.
I asked if all cases are brought to the legal MAC and, in response to Deputy Gilmore's question, not all cases are brought to it. Currently there are 340 cases of constitutional actions against the State. Therefore, not every case is brought to the legal MAC, only the cases it is believed merit that consideration where challenges have been made either to constitutional Acts of the Oireachtas or otherwise. I thought the idea was that every case would come before it, but I want to be clear about that. I checked the number of current cases and given the number it would not be possible for them all to come before it. The main cases of the 340 current cases would be brought forward to the legal MAC.
I believe there were 19 recommendations in the Sullivan report. How many of them have been implemented? What is the timescale for their full implementation?
Is the Taoiseach satisfied that a similar situation will not arise again? I thought the then Attorney General, Rory Brady, was to be informed at certain stages, which did not happen. Is the Taoiseach satisfied that will not arise again?
As the Taoiseach is aware, there were a number of cases where a statutory rape charge was made against a number of individuals. Those charges were dropped because the charge in that context was unconstitutional and another charge was put against them. What is the position regarding those persons or the charges of statutory rape, which were put against those individuals but which were not pursued in the courts because of the unconstitutionality of the charge? Does the Taoiseach have any information on that? How many of those cases are involved at the moment?
To the best of my knowledge, there was only a small number of those cases. I do not have the information on them but I understand most of them were brought back in under different clauses and they all took effect. It is a number of months since I was briefed on it but, to the best of my knowledge, I do not believe there were any difficulties with them.
I understand all the procedures have been brought in. As Members will recall at that time the case was properly handled and efficiently dealt with but in terms of risk management it was not brought to the attention of the Attorney General. There were seven phases where it should have been brought to his attention but that was only done in the first phase, which was the appointment of the legal counsel.
I would like to be able to say to Deputy Kenny I would be absolutely confident nothing like that could happen again. I was watching, as I am sure was the Deputy, what was happening in the UK overnight when the whole files of a system were put in the post.
The Taoiseach has not done that yet.
I would be a little wary to say nothing like that could ever happen.
The Taoiseach never had the files. He cannot remember where they are.
The Taoiseach never had the files in the first place. This file covered 25 million people.
Somebody actually resigned there.
If one puts a file covering 25 million people in the post and does not register it, what does one expect? We never know what might be happening at any time. That is the point I am making.
Seriously, all these matters have been followed through. When I checked the position regarding the legal MAC and the number of cases current at any one time, I presumed that I would have been told there were, say, ten cases of actions against either statutory instruments or legislation of this House. When I was briefed on this matter last week, I saw from the briefing notes there are currently 340 cases. The huge volume of cases concerns me. Each of these cases concerns a constitutional action taken against the State, either constitutional actions against statutes that we put in place or statutory instruments. That number of cases shows the complexity of the work in that office and they account for only part of the work.
When dealing with these questions, I checked back to the last round of difficulties we had in 1994 to 1995 and noted the figures then as against now. The volume of litigation currently is extraordinary. I would be naive to say that it will cease. It puts enormous pressure on the system. The recommendations in the 1995 report were fully implemented and the then Attorney General, Dermot Gleeson, to his credit, undertook the first overhaul of that office and subsequent office holders have continued on that work and brought in a huge range of procedures. The volume of work and pressure in that office is enormous, given the volume of litigation. That is proper and people are entitled to take such actions, but the volume of work is high. Even though we have all these procedures in place, the number of cases is a concern. We have protocols as to how these cases are handled but there is the issue of sheer volume of cases in the Attorney General's office, the Chief State Solicitor's Office and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have implemented fully the recommendations of the Nally report, we have resolved the industrial relations and brought in the extra staff recommended. A large number of staff are now working in the office but the volume of cases is huge.
On the related matter of the proposed referendum on children's rights, will the Taoiseach indicate when that might take place? I understand that the committee dealing with the referendum is about to be established and it will have to report within its terms of reference. I understand that included in that is a projected four-month timeframe for responding. Will the Taoiseach confirm that is the case? Given that we will then have to go through the normal process of the Dáil and Seanad address of the enabling legislation in regard to the amendment to the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, does the Taoiseach anticipate that there will be sufficient time to allow for that proposed referendum to be held on the same day as the expected referendum on the Lisbon treaty? Is it his intent to hold both on the same day or is he anticipating the latter coming first and a referendum on children's rights being held later in 2008?
The Deputy will appreciate that is not totally within my control. We will have to try to resolve that in the House as well. I will give the Deputy my view and the Government's view on this. We gave a commitment last spring that we would have a children's rights referendum within a year. I would like to try to honour that. We have set up a committee with terms of reference. I understand it has come to a compromise that it will be five months before we can finalise it and that would put it back to the end of April. The Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, briefed me on this yesterday. Then, there has to be a referendum Bill and in regard to the summer, that would make matters very tight. Regardless of the other referendum, it would be very unlikely that we would have two referendums in one year or even within any foreseeable timeframe. If this is not held in tandem with the other referendum next year, then it will be pushed back. In the event, that would be unfair to the NGOs who are being pressed on this. I gave a commitment two years ago that we would deal with this issue.
As the Deputy knows, we have to deal with the other issue in 2008, albeit on no particular date. I should like to see the work being undertaken by the all-party committee dealing with the constitutional amendment on children completed as speedily as possible, so that the two referendums may be held at the same time. Our practice here has been to try to reach agreement in so far as we can on the holding of referendums. It would be preferable to hold them together, if we can.
I have a brief supplementary for the Taoiseach. I gather from his response that he would like to see both referendums taking place on the one day, and that makes eminent sense because, hopefully, it would maximise participation. Is he concerned, however, given the timeframes that I have outlined in my original question, that the prospects of this being achieved are unlikely, because of constraints of time both as regards the new committee and in the context of whatever enabling legislation must be processed through both Houses of the Oireachtas? I am concerned and would like the Taoiseach to elaborate further since his response indicates they are unlikely to be held together on the same day. Given the pattern of referendum intervals, can he say whether there could be an inordinate delay before the children's referendum is placed before the people? Can he be somewhat more specific and give the House a further sense of his current understanding of the situation and what steps he believes may be taken to accommodate both referendums at the earliest opportunity, preferably on the one day?
That is a fair summary of what I stated. If we are to hold the two referendums together, it means the work has to be done as speedily as possible. It seems to me a large amount of work has been done and the Minister of State, Deputy Smith, advises me that the committee will take until the end of April. Then a referendum Bill will have to be passed, but it is really a matter of how to schedule the timetable. If that is not done, then the commitment of every party leader in the House will have been broken, not just mine, that this issue would be dealt with within a year. I do not believe the NGOs, which comprise a large number of organisations from all over the country, would be upset if that commitment was broken by a few months. However, it would be a different position if it were to be broken by a few years, and that is not desirable. I shall do everything I can, but I need the co-operation of everybody to try to deal with these two issues together. The fact is that we have given a commitment for one to be finished around Easter, and that is not possible. The other we have to deal with in 2008, because of the EU implications. Some degree of effort is therefore required from the children's committee, which I know has just started work in this regard, as well as from the House, to deal with the two issues. It would be better if we could deal with them together.
The Taoiseach mentioned that a startlingly high number of constitutional actions are under way in any year. Do his briefing notes have further information in this regard? He mentioned a figure of 340 that are currently in hand. What percentage of these cases actually come to trial? More important, perhaps, how many successfully identify a breach of the Constitution in any year as regards either primary or secondary legislation?
The answer to the last question is that the percentage is tiny, but that does not impede the effort. I do not have a breakdown. To be honest, I was surprised there were that many cases through the legal MAC. I had not realised the number was that high, but only a small percentage of cases are ever successful. A fair number of them are pushed all the way, however. The Deputy has been in the House as long as I have and knows there is an ever-growing industry, if that is the word, reviewing the legislation on statutory instruments and formulating challenges around particular groups. That seems to grow exponentially every year.
5 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if, in regard to the commitment contained in the Agreed Programme for Government, he will outline his plan for a review of the entire economic regulatory environment; the person who will undertake the review; when it is expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23678/07]
6 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Taoiseach the plans he has to establish a review similar to the Davidson review on the implementation of EU legislation in the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23955/07]
7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans for a review of the economic regulatory environment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28180/07]
8 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his plan for review of the entire economic regulatory programme as outlined in the Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29229/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
The programme for Government contains a commitment to instigate a review of the entire economic regulatory environment. This review will be designed to ensure that the existing regulatory regime is operating efficiently, balancing the needs of users with the requirements of producers and is not imposing excessive costs on the economy.
An interdepartmental group, chaired by my Department, has been tasked with advancing work in this area. Arising from the group's recommendations, the Government has agreed to establish an Oireachtas Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs whose remit will include the scrutiny of the efficiency and effectiveness of regulators in key economic sectors such as energy, communications, transport, health and safety and financial services. As Deputies will be aware, the committee will be chaired by Deputy Michael Moynihan.
In the medium term, the interdepartmental group has been tasked by Government with examining a range of legislative provisions to enhance accountability and the transparency of regulators' operations. These measures will strengthen oversight of regulators by the new Oireachtas committee. The Government believes that we need stronger international data and benchmarks in order to assess the comparative efficiency and effectiveness of Irish regulators. Terms of reference for such an international study are currently being finalised by the interdepartmental group.
The Davidson report in Britain examined the transposition of EU legislation in the UK by the British Government. While much concern is expressed about the over-implementation of EU legislation — or "gold plating" as it is often called — a key finding of the Davidson report was that these concerns are greatly exaggerated and, in practice, there was very little evidence of gold plating to be found in the UK.
With regard to Ireland, my Department commissioned the ESRI to conduct a survey of business attitudes to regulation which was published earlier this year. This study examined in detail the responses of more than 800 Irish companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises. The study found that regulation ranks behind concerns over labour costs and increased competition in terms of challenges faced by business, but ahead of concerns over infrastructure and staffing issues. In general, firms feel that the overall amount of regulation is about right. This finding is in line with the PricewaterhouseCoopers CEO Pulse Survey 2007, which found that on a worldwide stage, 73% of CEOs see regulation as the main potential barrier to growth compared with the Irish figure of only 3%.
It is important that in examining the burdens imposed by regulation, we do not diminish the protections for citizens and workers that have been put in place. Nevertheless, it is right to see whether there are unnecessary burdens and red tape that could be eliminated without impinging on the core purpose of regulation. With this in mind, I have tasked my colleague, Deputy Michéal Martin, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment with driving our national programme of reducing unnecessary administrative burdens. Deputy Martin has appointed a high level group of officials and representatives of business and trade unions, to look at ways of reducing unnecessary burdens in five priority areas identified by Irish business as the most burdensome.
These are taxation, health and safety, environment law, statistical returns and employment and company law. This is in line with the commitment in the Agreed Programme for Government to ensure direct feedback from business on regulatory burdens. The work of this group will inform Ireland's approach to meeting the commitment contained in the spring European Council conclusions to put in place a national programme to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.
Regarding the timely transposition of EU legislation into Irish law, my Department has a monitoring role through the interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European affairs which is chaired by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche. The transposition of EU directives is a standing item in the work programme of the committee.
Departments are required to provide regular updates on directives applicable to their areas of responsibility. The updates assist in the co-ordination and monitoring of the transposition of all EU directives, including those counted towards the European Commission's Internal Market scoreboard. The Commission has set a 1% transposition deficit target for the Internal Market scoreboard for 2009.
Is the Taoiseach happy with how the various regulatory bodies are operating? Serious concerns arise in respect of a number of them. We touched on the fact that, since we established an energy regulator, most of the companies selling energy raised their prices last year to an extraordinarily high level. This year, having imposed huge increases mistakenly, many of which were unnecessary and drove inflation, the Commission for Energy Regulation is proposing to reduce some prices. However, the reductions will by no means be as great as the increases. The Irish inflation rate is now at the top end of the European scale and a key element in driving it has been the manner in which regulation has taken place in the energy sector. This is but one example.
There was recently an international credit crisis and credit crunch. An extensive system of financial regulation was established in Ireland but it was not enough to prevent a number of spectacular collapses in the International Financial Services Centre and among companies offering special investment vehicles. It turned out that these companies and their investment vehicles were not regulated. Can the review about which the Taoiseach is speaking be in any way meaningful if it does not take account of the effectiveness of regulation, particularly in respect of the prices regulators allow their respective industries or service providers to charge? Does the Taoiseach propose that the review should take account of this?
I do not want to address the issue of public transport but one should consider the role of the Commission for Taxi Regulation. I do not know when the Taoiseach was last in a taxi or whether he noted how dirty and expensive some of them were. Our taxi fares are among the highest in Europe. It costs between €8 and €10, at a minimum, to travel during the day between the canals in this city, a journey of less than three miles. Many taxi drivers offer a great service and a great running commentary on the whole political system. It is great fun——
And on me.
The Taoiseach does not get that commentary; I do and it is very informative. I do not know what the regulator does because the cleanliness of some taxis leaves a lot to be desired. Is the Taoiseach happy with the regulatory system he has established?
We have a large number of regulators, as the Deputy implied, and the review is designed to ensure the existing regulatory regime operates efficiently, balances the needs of users with the requirements of producers and does not impose excessive costs on the economy. That is exactly what I want to see done.
The regulatory system we have built has reflected international practice for the past 15 years or so. There are regulators for different areas, including the Commission for Communications Regulation, the Commission for Energy Regulation, the Commission for Taxi Regulation and the Financial Regulator. The interdepartmental group which includes my Department is working in this area. It has been very active in recent years and has done a lot of good work, as has been recognised by both unions and employers. Arising from its recommendations, we have agreed to establish an Oireachtas committee on regulation that will give Members a chance to scrutinise the efficiency of regulators in all key economic areas, including energy, communications, transport, health and safety, and financial services.
I agree with the Deputy's point on unregulated special investment vehicles. When dealing with changes affecting the credit unions, for example, with which changes I have been dealing for the past few years, one can get nothing passed if it is not sanctioned by the Financial Regulator. I have no problem with this because there is always a likelihood that someone will hit the dust, thereby causing a big problem. A special investment vehicle allowance which can amount to tens of millions of euro can operate outside the remit of the Financial Regulator. I have said outside the House and reiterate within it that the issue in question was broadly spread. That was my understanding of it and I spoke about it when it arose.
During the term of the last Dáil I answered questions endlessly on how the regulators per se worked. I stated we would review them and included a proposal to this effect in the programme for Government. We also decided to establish an Oireachtas committee to scrutinise them. Needless to say, the regulators work hard to the best of their ability and do their jobs, yet a device is needed, whereby the Oireachtas can question their work. This will be achieved by the interdepartmental group and the Oireachtas committee. For the existing and new regulators, this will allow for far better functioning of the House.
I take it as given that the staff of the Commission for Energy Regulation work from morning until night, but they got the pricing of energy products seriously wrong, with a consequent economic impact.
We discussed the ESB previously. The effect of regulating the ESB and allowing competition under the guidance of a regulator was such that electricity prices were pushed to the top of the EU scale. The Taoiseach stated less than an hour ago that electricity prices had been historically low theretofore. The price increase imposed great burdens on consumers and particularly on industry which at the beginning of the process appeared as if it would gain. The gain did not last.
What is the point in having an oversight system for regulation if the core economic effect of regulation has been to drive up prices and inflation, a key indicator of our economic competitiveness? How quickly do regulators who permit price increases row back and reduce them when they get them wrong? It has taken almost one year for some of the energy price reductions to materialise.
My point on financial services regulation is that credit unions are correctly subjected to much regulation, as the Taoiseach stated. However, there was nothing to advise them not to invest in structured investment vehicles. Very wealthy high rollers in Irish society, and others, invested tens of millions in such vehicles. It is essentially a form of gambling and the only difference between it and Nick Leeson's on-line spread-betting operation for Paddy Power is that the average punter with Paddy Power probably restricts his bets to sums between €2,000 and €5,000. Those investing in structured investment vehicles through the Irish Stock Exchange, on the other hand, are investing tens of millions of euro. Will the Financial Regulator address this issue sooner rather than later? There is a huge hole in our financial regulatory system whereby the regulator has made decisions that certain types of financial activity are outside the remit of regulation. I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that this also includes the prices charged for the purchase of financial investment products sold by insurance companies. Again, we have some of the highest prices in Europe. When somebody goes to buy a PRSA or some other kind of financial insurance investment product, the cost of the purchase of those services is extraordinarily high in this country and seems to be entirely outside the regulation remit. Does the Taoiseach have a view on this because we all want to bring down prices and costs and these are significant cost areas?
I do not want to get into insurance and financial regulation, which are covered by the Tánaiste and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Government's position is that it has set up the interdepartmental group which will be tasked with examining the range of legislation to enhance the accountability and transparency of regulators' operations in their entirety. These measures will strengthen oversight.
I think Deputy Burton would agree that the fact that we have oversight over these regulators and that the Oireachtas will now have oversight over them is a good thing. I have given her my general view. I have never believed that hedging is not a regulated area.
It is not.
I do not agree with that position. Hedge funds are not akin to somebody going to Paddy Power. I know one could use this argument in respect of how they are classified. Punting a few hundred euro and punting hundreds of millions of euro into vehicle funds is entirely different. It would not take until lunch time to work out that even if one put a limit on it, all these issues would come into it. George Soros used hedge funds to attack the ERM and the entire financial system over a decade ago. About 20 analyses of this were carried out internationally. This was a regulated end of the market. I have no reason to change my view.
When Deputy Burton asked for my view, I was surprised to see that this vehicle fund of several hundred million euro was not regulated. It would have been in the interest of the individuals involved, regardless of whether they are high rollers, if it was also regulated. Maybe they thought the fact that it was not regulated was a good idea but I think they will change their minds now.
The independent Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, which was established in 1999, has regulated the market here. It has regulated the natural gas market for the past five or six years. Many of these measures came from EU legislation and European decisions and we set it down here by way of legislation. The framework of our legislative policy in which CER functions reflects EU energy policy. All of these areas, by and large, were initiatives and came from EU legislation and directives which we transposed. What we did not do at the time was set up a regulatory and oversight system which is what this measure is doing.
The Davidson review was a very comprehensive report which made a number of recommendations on best practice in the implementation of EU legislation. Is it not the case that this report highlighted unnecessary costs for business in respect of regulatory creep and the over-implementation of regulations coming from Europe? Is it not the case that this is a huge concern not just for the business community in Ireland but for the public in general?
Why has the Taoiseach not included sectors such as agriculture in the review which he has instigated? Is it not the case that we have an upcoming health check in this area next year? This would be an ideal time to review the regulatory impact of European bureaucracy in agriculture and the environment. I know the Taoiseach touched on this area in his initial response.
Our system is inadequate from the perspective of EU scrutiny. What steps will be taken to ensure that this creeping bureaucracy is not introduced in various sectors of Irish society? What specific measures will the Taoiseach put in place in advance of the tabling of the EU reform treaty? Is it not the case that one of the biggest issues that will come up in respect of this treaty is bureaucracy? This is brought on us because Ministers have time and again blamed Europe for introducing rules and regulations when in fact it is the transposition of those regulations by those same Ministers into Irish law that has caused the difficulty. How are we going to address the issue of the interpretation of EU directives by the Government in Ireland, which, in the vast majority of cases, is causing the problem for people when they try to comply with these regulations on the ground?
My question is in the same vein. In the programme for Government, it is stated that the Government will implement procedures to ensure feedback from business in respect of the burden of regulation and publish annual reports on these issues. Have the procedures been introduced and can the Taoiseach tell us what they are? What mechanism is being used to consult with business?
Does the Taoiseach accept that there is a significant burden on small businesses in particular in respect of complying with the regulatory burden emanating from the EU? I offer that question in line with the Davidson review on the implementation of EU legislation and the final report of same in respect of the same matter in the neighbouring island of Great Britain. Is the Taoiseach aware of the detail of the Davidson review? While the report states that the impact is not as great as is generally believed, it nevertheless makes specific recommendations and instances a number of issues in respect of MOT tests, fisheries, insurance and mediation.
In line with those and using the example of the MOT test, would such recommendations as are contained in the Davidson review have application here? Would the Taoiseach consider similar measures in order to relieve the burden and responsibility on business, including small businesses, and the individual citizen?
Given that the Taoiseach will visit Cork later this week, I hope he will announce some good news for the city and that he will honour the commitments given in respect of Cork Airport before the last election. If he can spare a minute or two or a few hours, he might visit west Cork and see what we need there. Maybe I might get a chance to introduce him to his palatial home down there or to his super ocean-going yacht.
I will meet the Deputy in Castledonovan.
Is the Deputy looking for a regulator for west Cork?
I think they want a Texas ranger down there.
I will take the three questions from the Deputies together. A unit in my Department works with representatives of small business, IBEC and the trade unions. It has carried out a survey of 800 companies, including small companies. The PricewaterhouseCoopers Pulse Survey is also available. Worldwide, 73% of CEOs see regulation as the main potential barrier to growth. The figure in Ireland is 3% so we do not have an enormous problem with this. We try to identify the burdens and those put forward by industry include taxation and, increasingly, health and safety, which industry sees as imposing too many rules, regulations and plans. The latest Act addresses some of these concerns. The other areas are environmental law, to which Deputy Naughten was particularly referring, statistical returns and employment and company law. These are the five main areas, the others are small and insignificant. In each of those areas we are working with the industry sector and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, is examining how we can eliminate as much as we can without impinging on the core purpose of regulation. Much of it involves simplification and using technology in better ways.
When EU legislation is used to enhance matters, by cleaning water, improving the air or addressing issues of safety on roads, people are in favour of it. When EU legislation imposes an obligation on people, they are against it. One group of social partners wants EU law transposed because it improves security of work and the other group points out how it affects one of the five areas outlined. Progress is being made on these issues and if we follow the regulation line, follow reports on business attitudes to regulations and get stakeholders to work together we can get rid of much bureaucracy and forms, as has happened in the past few years. Many of the forms are not necessary and refer to old legislation even though the statutes stipulate what must be done.
The Davidson review examined the transposition of EU legislation and came from Eurosceptics who were trying to argue the case that transposition of EU directives in the UK was causing major concern to British business. Members of the group got their way on how the report should be done but then they found their concerns were greatly exaggerated. The report found there was little evidence of gold plating in the UK, even though the project started from a totally Eurosceptic point of view. That is why one does not hear much about the Davidson review anymore from Eurosceptics. It did not give them the result they sought.
It examined more than business.
There is no regulator for agriculture, which is done in a different way in the EU. In fairness to Commissioner Fischer Boel, with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food we have been able to address most of the issues in agriculture in a satisfactory manner. We must comply with EU regulations and, while we have a review of some of the issues, most of the major obstacles have been overcome by the single payment scheme. The form is still too long and too difficult but we have tried to achieve an understanding with the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Commission on that issue. We must be mindful of the resources we receive. That debate will be continued in the next review.
Regarding the issue in Cork, we will try to ensure they are not regulated.
