Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of staff vacancies in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17139/08]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Departmental Staff.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of staff vacancies in his Department broken down by grade; the steps being taken to fill these; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19445/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of staff vacancies in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20935/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:4 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the way in which he intends to achieve the reduction of 3% in payroll costs for his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29627/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
Vacancies arise in my Department from time to time for a variety of reasons, including staff transferring to other Departments, retirements, career breaks and resignations.
In accordance with the business needs of the Department and the relevant Civil Service rules and procedures, it has been the practice to fill vacancies through the appropriate deployment of existing staff within the Department, promotion competitions, lateral transfers or external recruitment through the Public Appointments Service.
At present, there are three vacancies in the Department and it is anticipated that three more staff will leave the Department in the coming months. The grades involved are cleaner, service officer, clerical officer, administrative officer, higher executive officer and assistant principal.
Further to the Government's recent decision to achieve a 3% saving in payroll costs, the senior management team has decided that the staffing needs of the Department will be managed from within the existing staff complement, having regard to the budgetary constraints and the overall priorities of the Department.
I refer to comments made in July by the Government making a commitment to reduce the public service bill by 3% by the end of 2009. I note the Taoiseach has employed a non-Civil Service economic adviser in his own Department at an obvious cost to the taxpayer. May I take it that the 3% reduction in payroll will apply to both Civil Service and non-Civil Service staff?
It applies to the Department's full payroll.
Will it apply to both civil servants and non-civil servants?
The figure of 3% applies to the full payroll. The Department has been given an opportunity to reduce the payroll by 3% by the end of 2009 in respect of all employees, regardless of their status.
If this is to apply across the board, how will the decision be made between civil servants and non-civil servants? Who is to point the finger of redundancy, moving on or whatever within the Department of the Taoiseach?
The reduction in payroll is envisaged on the basis of taking 3% off the payroll costs. One achieves this by examining whether to recruit people as a result of vacancies arising, the position regarding overtime and a range of issues. Such flexibility must be given to management to achieve the payroll cut. I am simply saying the payroll cut applies to the full payroll costs of the Department, regardless of the status of those who work there.
Have any appointments been made in the Department of the Taoiseach since the announcement was made regarding the 3% cut in payroll costs? How does the Taoiseach propose to achieve the 3% cut in payroll costs in his Department?
The decision to manage staff resources within existing staff resources in effect means that staff vacancies arising will, in general, not be filled by means of external recruitment, which will result in a permanent reduction in the authorised staff complement for the Department. This will necessitate reviews of how staff are deployed within the Department to ensure that key areas of departmental activity are staffed adequately. The Department will endeavour to redeploy staff according to key business needs and levels of activity, to restructure workloads as appropriate and to achieve greater productivity through exploiting new technologies and availing of shared services arrangements. That is how it will work.
It is difficult to predict the numbers affected at this time as the budgetary effect will depend on the timing and grade of any vacancies that may arise due to staff leaving the Department, whether as a result of retirement, external promotion or any other reason. It is estimated, based on averages, that approximately ten posts will be affected.
I thank the Taoiseach for reading out that section of his brief and ask him to answer the two questions I asked of him. Have any appointments been made in the Department of the Taoiseach since the 3% payroll cut was announced in July? How will he achieve the 3% payroll cut in his Department?
The answer to the first question is not to my knowledge. Second, I have just explained how the payroll cut will be achieved in the Department.
I will come back to Deputy Gilmore. I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.
In the context of staff vacancies, can the Taoiseach advise what is the employment policy regarding people with disabilities within the Department of the Taoiseach? Does that Department have a policy of affirmative action to ensure people with disabilities have a fair opportunity to compete and access vacancies as they present? I expect the Taoiseach will confirm his acknowledgement that people with disabilities are under-represented within the Civil Service and his acceptance that the Civil Service itself is in a unique position to take affirmative action measures to try to address such under-representation.
While I am open to correction as there was a lot of background noise at the time, in his initial reply did the Taoiseach indicate there are three vacancies within his Department at present? What are the prospects of any of those positions within the Department of the Taoiseach being taken up by someone with a disability? Can the Taoiseach advise the House what affirmative action measures are currently in place within his Department and what further steps does he propose to take to address this extremely important and pressing imbalance?
A census of staff serving in my Department as of 31 December 2007 was conducted in February of this year. Some 5% of the 79% who responded to the survey voluntarily disclosed a disability. My Department is an equal opportunities employer and staff are recruited solely on the basis of ability to fulfil specific roles. My Department exceeds the legislative requirement of employing a 3% level of people with disabilities in the public service and as I have stated, 5% of Department staff voluntarily disclosed disability.
Staff are recruited through the Public Appointments Service on the basis that they meet the requirements of the positions they are to fill. The issue of disability does not affect assignment to my Department and no exceptions are made in that regard. Recruitment, promotion, training and other benefits or opportunities are decided on objective criteria, including the qualifications and suitability of the applicant.
Our recruitment principles follow the Department of Finance code of practice for the employment of people with disabilities in the Civil Service and the Commission for Public Service Appointments code of practice for employment of persons with disabilities to positions in the Civil Service and certain public bodies.
The Taoiseach's reply invites a further question. He indicated that members of staff in the Taoiseach's Department voluntarily disclosed a disability of one sort or another. My understanding — the Taoiseach may correct me if I am wrong — is there is a requirement on Departments across the board to meet the 3% level in terms of recruiting people with disabilities. If the disclosures were voluntary, was this factor relating to disability taken into account with regard to access to employment in the first place?
This is a very important point which needs clarification as quotas are to be reached. These are currently inadequate and understate the present need. They should be increased to a 5% level — an argument I have made here before with the support of other voices currently in government.
Will the Taoiseach outline the current vacancies in his Department as I may not have picked him up correctly in his initial reply because of noise in the Chamber? I understand three vacancies were signalled but if this is not the case will the Taoiseach please let us know? Is there any prospect with regard to current affirmative action measures that the positions will be filled by someone with a clear disability if there are any vacancies in the Department?
We are talking about staff in the Taoiseach's Department and the Civil Service across the board. What is the Taoiseach's position on the contribution by the Minister of State, Deputy John McGuinness, in which he stated that the Civil Service is "a reactionary, inert mass at the centre of our economy" with too many square pegs in round holes throughout? The Taoiseach has not clarified to my satisfaction how he stands on that view, which must be a reflection on his Department also. Will the Taoiseach put on record how he stands on Deputy McGuinness's utterances and convey his view of the standard of people employed within our Civil Service?
I explained the various codes of practice employed within my Department and I have also indicated that based on a survey, we know approximately 5% of our employees meet the definition regarding disability. With regard to the specific query raised outside the ambit of this question on comments by the Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness, those were personal and do not reflect Government policy.
I will ask two further questions. The website of the Department of the Taoiseach shows the progress report, phase 3, of the public service modernisation programme, which was published in April 2007, or 18 months ago. In fairness, the first three reports were published within six months of each other. This modernisation programme, as the Taoiseach knows, details staff numbers and points out priorities for the Departments. Nothing further has been posted in the past 18 months so when can we expect the next progress report on public service modernisation in so far as it affects the Taoiseach's Department?
My second question — we have been around this mill a few times — relates to the communications unit established in the Department of the Taoiseach by the Taoiseach's predecessor for the purpose of providing news updates, transcripts and so forth. Recently, when the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, was musing about the return of third level fees, I noted he stated that his Department had built up a file of clippings to present to him in order that he could form a judgment on the issue.
I thought it was a pile of beer mats.
This obviously means the Government Information Service is duplicating at a cost of €340,000 per annum what is being done in the Departments. In the context of the reduction in the public service pay bill, does this mean that either the units in the Departments or the communications unit will be the subject of some rationalisation?
I will have to check with the Deputy regarding the report on modernisation about which he inquires. I will get back to him on the issue which is outside the ambit of the questions in front of me.
On the communications unit, I have explained the situation regarding how it is envisaged that payroll costs would be cut in the Departments. It is not specific to individual units or members of staff. It is about how or whether one fills vacancies when they arise, where external promotions will be held, how one increases productivity and where one introduces information technology to assist productivity rather than increasing personnel. These issues form part of the management function to be managed in the course of the coming year to enable Departments to discharge their core function, while at the same time meeting the policy objective of reducing payroll costs.
I will return to the 3% reduction in payroll costs and the comments made by the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy John McGuinness. I do not accept the line that his comments were personal. This was not a——
As the Deputy is well aware, the issue is not relevant to the questions, which relate to the number of staff in the Taoiseach's Department.
I will explain the reason the issue is relevant. The Minister of State proposed a way by which payroll reductions could be achieved and said a vast programme of redundancies should be implemented immediately across the Civil Service and State sector. He identified where these redundancies would take place and stated that there are too many people in the Civil Service who have no function or do not know what their function is.
The same applies to the Government.
There were, he said, featherless but still plump State hens in the Civil Service and unhappy square pegs in round holes.
Whatever about hens or ducks, the questions refer to staff vacancies in the Taoiseach's Department.
Are there any featherless but plump State hens in the Taoiseach's Department or square pegs in round holes who he believes should be made redundant? Is there anybody in his Department with no function who he may make redundant?
Having explained three times how the payroll costs are to be handled, I do not wish to repeat the explanation again. On the question of Civil Service and public service modernisation or public sector reform, as it has been described, I expect the task force, which I set up on obtaining the OECD report on the matter, will report to us very shortly. The task force will set out in a coherent and schematic way how to approach dealing with the recommendations in the OECD report, which refer to the fact that while overall we have a very good public service, there are clearly areas where we can try to improve. It is our objective to put in place the means by which we can achieve this based on the task force's recommendations. That is the most comprehensive and coherent way to approach these matters.
I have no assurance from the responses given so far by the Taoiseach that there is within his Department a policy of affirmative action in relation to people with disability. Does he accept that a statement of voluntary disclosure, which happens to show a level above the quotient applying with regard to the employment of people with disabilities, in no way assuages the fears of this Deputy or other people that there is not a proactive approach to facilitating people with disabilities accessing employment in Departments, specifically the Taoiseach's Department, and the broader Civil Service? I will not engage in a heated exchange with the Taoiseach on this matter. However, I invite him to put the record straight. Is there such a programme in place and, if so, does he project that people with disabilities will be considered for vacancies arising in his Department?
There must be certainty about this matter. It cannot be a case of adopting a hit and miss approach and inquiring after the fact, by means of voluntary disclosure, whether a person has a disability. There is a requirement on all Departments to ensure that a certain percentage of their staff have specified disabilities.
I welcome the Taoiseach's response, on the record, to the effect that remarks made by the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy McGuinness, were personal in nature and do not represent the views of the Government. When the Minister of State made his remarks, I was of the opinion that they reflected the usual confusion among members of Fianna Fáil who see the Civil Service as an appendage of their party. The Minister of State was clearly only referring to Fianna Fáil.
I cannot fathom the meaning of the second part of the Deputy's contribution.
I was referring to square pegs in round holes.
The Taoiseach is not that slow.
The survey to which I referred is evidence that a policy exists, that this policy is monitored, that the targets set down are being exceeded and that there is adherence to the codes of practice. The Deputy's contention seems to be that a survey was carried out, that people disclosed their views and that there is not a policy, but the position is quite the contrary.
The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy McGuinness, is one of a number of new junior Ministers appointed by the Government. He is one of four Ministers of State serving in that Department.
They will need a big table.
When I asked the Taoiseach whether the Government had done anything to find jobs for people since the Dáil last met, he was not in a position to indicate a single action taken by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment or any of her four Ministers of State in the past ten weeks in that regard. To quote the Minister of State, Deputy McGuinness——
The Deputy knows as well as I do that quotations are not allowed on Question Time.
Yes, but they are good.
They are not. It is not my fault they are not allowed; those are the rules of the House. In any event, and as Deputy Gilmore is probably well aware, the Minister for Finance has overall responsibility for the Civil Service. We must remain within the parameters of the original questions.
The question tabled in my name relates to the Government's objective to achieve a 3% reduction in payroll costs. Is the Taoiseach of the view that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which has four Ministers of State, is somewhat over-staffed?
A few of them are square pegs.
Or clucking hens.
Does he believe there might be scope for achieving a reduction in the payroll of that Department?
The Ministers of State in question have cross-cutting responsibilities which range beyond their work in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. They are doing their jobs. The reduction in payroll costs relates to staff. I have already outlined, on approximately six occasions since I began answering questions on this matter, how that reduction is to be made.
Does the Taoiseach intend to introduce, if necessary, a voluntary redundancy scheme to bring about the cuts he proposes? Is such a scheme under consideration in any Department of State?
No decision has been made in respect of those matters. All we have done is outline how the 3% payroll cuts are to be achieved.
Is such a scheme being considered?
We should await the outcome of the task force report and the OECD report before considering any of those matters.
The Taoiseach referred to the OECD report. Is it true that senior civil servants felt inhibited in putting forward their views on areas of the Civil Service and Departments where an over-deployment of staff — possibly as many as 8,000 — occurred? Is it also true the Government nobbled or interfered with the OECD report to make it less trenchant in the context of being an honest and open evaluation?
Very detailed reports were carried in the Irish Independent around the time of the summer recess. The Taoiseach’s Department is responsible for that report, so could he say what interaction there was? Was there discussion about overdeployment in some areas, particularly arising from the mess caused to Departments by decentralisation, the general uncertainty about where people were going and from where they were coming and the duplication of offices arising from decentralisation? A number of senior civil servants were very disturbed and conveyed this quietly.
Is it true that in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, there was an open discussion at a management meeting that there was excessive deployment and confusion about what people were doing in the context of all the moves in the Civil Service again arising from decentralisation?
The Taoiseach can only answer for his Department. That is what the questions are about.
I am not aware of the identity of the civil servants who made those comments, if they exist at all. The OECD people stand over their report. I recall reading that article. I am not aware of those who felt so strongly or if they made themselves known.
Data Protection.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place in his Department for the protection of personal data held by electronic means; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18732/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the procedures in his Department for protection of personal data retained electronically; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20936/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if any computers, disks, laptops or memory storage devices containing personal information about members of the public have been lost or stolen from his Department; if any of these contained personal information; the frequency with which an audit of such equipment is done; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21762/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:8 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the procedures in place within his Department to ensure the security of data held by electronic means; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21763/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
My Department applies best practice and uses industry standard information security protection devices and software to protect all data within its systems. The Department regularly reviews and updates these security procedures and products as a matter of course.
No computers, disks, laptops or memory storage devices containing personal information about members of the public have been lost or stolen from my Department. Although sensitive information belonging to members of the public is not generally collected by, or stored, in the Department's electronic systems, a number of specific measures are in place in my Department to protect all data which is held electronically.
Access to personal information held on databases within my Department is controlled by application security and confined to relevant authorised personnel only. Access by users to these systems is granted on a "needs only" basis. The Department's computer networks themselves are secured against cyber attacks through the use of security products such as multiple firewalls, anti-virus software and e-mail security tools. Staff supplied with mobile equipment are issued with guidance to ensure devices are secured properly. The hard drives of all laptops are encrypted and do not store departmental data physically on them. Strong authentication methods, in addition to username and password, are in place to prevent unauthorised access to the Department's network from mobile devices.
My Department also evaluates and reviews advanced information security products and technologies as they come to market and implements them where appropriate. The Department's IT assets are audited by the IT unit on an annual basis. The IT unit is currently carrying out an asset audit. Audits are also carried out on an ad hoc basis by the Department’s internal audit unit. My Department is also subject to annual audit inspections by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I thank the Taoiseach for that reply. If I understood him correctly, he clarified that no laptops, as far as is known, have been stolen from his Department.
The Taoiseach will be aware that personal information on 380,000 people on the social welfare register went missing in April 2007. It took until August 2008 — 16 months — before the Minister for Social and Family Affairs was made aware of the extent of the loss. I understand that the data was only password protected instead of being encryption protected. Am I correct that sensitive data in the Taoiseach's Department are encryption protected and not only password protected?
The Taoiseach will be aware that personal data on 580,000 people has been lost in the past 18 months and that the reporting of that seems to be inadequate. As he is aware, there are procedures in place but there are no specific legal obligations on a body which loses personal data to notify a person that private information on him or her has been lost. Also, there is no legal obligation on a body to notify the Data Protection Commissioner of any such loss. Does the Taoiseach agree that it is only right and proper that if a person's information is lost, he or she should be notified and there should be a legal requirement in that regard? Does he also agree that if a body loses similar relevant information, it should be obliged to inform the Data Protection Commissioner? The Taoiseach is aware that the reports of the Data Protection Commissioner are only made public if the body being investigated agrees to their publication. The Irish Blood Transfusion Board agreed to publication, but the Bank of Ireland did not.
The Taoiseach can only comment on his Department.
The question is in respect of his Department, but I have given examples from others.
With regard to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, I understand there is no evidence to suggest the information was used. The Minister provided a full and frank disclosure upon being notified of what had happened so the people concerned could take whatever precautions they wished to ensure their personal information would not be used by anybody in an unauthorised way. It is regrettable that theft happened, but I am sure whatever lessons are to be learned in terms of encryption arrangements will be learned.
On the issue of data protection legislation and the Data Protection Commission, perhaps a question directed to the Minister concerned would elicit the accurate information. One must balance the need to let people know of any infringement of their rights or privacy with the efficacy of being able to do so in terms of the number of people who may be affected. One may need to use other means to bring the matter to their attention so they can take whatever proactive steps they wish to ensure they are unaffected. This may provide the more practical means of assessing any damage or otherwise that arises as a result of these events happening.
In light of the recent series of laptop theft, will the Taoiseach indicate what steps are being taken within his Department and across all Departments to assess the security of personal data on citizens? Does the Taoiseach accept the theft of a laptop with the social welfare records of some 380,000 citizens and significant other material on their personal circumstances, including details of marriages, births etc., is very distressing? There is an undoubted confidence deficit in the public arena that must be addressed. Does the Taoiseach accept the call of the Data Protection Commissioner for all major holders of information on clients or citizens, be it in the public or private sector, to employ every care to ensure that information is not put at risk?
Does the Taoiseach accept that, in most instances, it appears the laptops stolen were not in an office environment at the time of the theft? They were stolen in transit between home and work or from public transport. The need for the removal of sensitive data transported in that manner must be examined. Will the Taoiseach assure us there is a review under way and that steps are being employed to ensure the security of information held on citizens by all Departments?
The Taoiseach can only answer for his Department.
It is important that the person responsible for equipment lost or stolen notifies authorities as quickly as possible, and immediately if possible. The procedures in place to deal with equipment reported as lost or stolen in my Department is that, where a device is reported missing or stolen, the user account associated with that device is immediately disabled. BlackBerries are centrally disabled from the server, a procedure which also wipes the memory of the machine. The network provider is notified so that the SIM card can be disabled, which renders the device inaccessible to unauthorised users. The Department's asset register is updated and, in the case of theft, the user is asked to report the matter to the Garda. Where personal or sensitive data are compromised, the Data Protection Commissioner is also informed.
These procedures satisfy us that best practice is followed to ensure Departments' databases are safe from hackers, for example. Industry standard information security protection devices and software are used to protect all data within systems. These procedures, products and devices are regularly reviewed and, in the case of a breach of security, would have to be reviewed and updated to ensure they are capable of providing the best security appropriate to a Department's needs at all times.
In regard to whether any incidents have occurred whereby personal data held by the Department of the Taoiseach or its agencies were compromised in any way, no personal data held electronically by my Department has been compromised in any way.
Obviously, every Department has to be vigilant in this area and employ good people in the relevant units so that they have the most up-to-date means of ensuring data are not accessible by other than authorised users and, immediately upon notification of theft, the ability to disable that information and render it useless to anyone else. Wiping the information held on a server or whatever is also an important part of the process of protection.
With regard to the laptops which were already stolen and the information they contained, including the social welfare information which affected 380,000 people and the blood bank details of 170,000 people, is there any evidence to suggest this information has been accessed?
We have a problem because the Taoiseach can only address questions for his own Department. Questions for the Department of Social and Family Affairs would have to be addressed to that Department's Minister.
The matter that has to be addressed is the public's concern about personal and sensitive information being accessed by somebody who should not have it. We now have a situation whereby certain medical tests in hospitals have been outsourced. There are clearly concerns about where that information might end up and it would help to reassure people if information could be provided as to whether material contained on laptops which have already been stolen has been accessed in any way.
The Taoiseach is not responsible for that.
The answer to that is not in my knowledge. I have not been notified of any adverse subsequent development beyond the fact that the events took place. The Ministers concerned have brought the events to public notice and have indicated what the people who may have been affected would need to do to reassure themselves that their information was not improperly accessed or used in a way that was adverse to their interests. I have not heard anything since then.
I ask the Taoiseach to investigate Departments and agencies, including his own, which publish on their websites personal information pertaining to inquiries they conduct. I refer specifically to the Private Residential Tenancies Board when it holds hearings into disputes over tenancies or whether a tenant is causing serious social problems in an area. The law requires that such hearings are held in public but, if members of the press do not attend and if nobody is present other than those involved in the hearing, the PRTB puts the name, address and all the details of the complaints and the responses to them on its public website. This compromises the people concerned in respect of their neighbours, so this issue needs to be addressed. The Data Protection Commissioner is trying to resolve the issue by having the town in which Mr. X or Ms. Y lives posted rather than his or her personal details. This is an important issue because it leads to the continuation of serious social problems.
The Taoiseach can only answer for his own Department.
This is a matter for the line Minister concerned. I can only observe that, unlike family law proceedings, these are not held in camera. There is not a requirement for privacy, so the question arises of how one can transparently communicate the outcome of these arrangements.
That is fine, but the detail is the issue with which I am concerned.
The question of the level of personal information and the extent to which this infringes privacy issues is a matter that can be taken up by the competent authorities and resolved in a practical manner.
There is very little time for the next question.
Regulatory Reform.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:9 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19680/08]
Leo Varadkar
Ceist:10 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Taoiseach the achievements to date of the better regulation project; if he will keep control of the project within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20599/08]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:11 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the practical or beneficial outcome for citizens from the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20938/08]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:12 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21764/08]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:13 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. [29469/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 13, inclusive, together.
Since the publication of the OECD report, Regulatory Reform in Ireland in 2001, significant progress has been made in the area of regulatory reform. In 2004, the Government published the White Paper, Regulating Better, in response to the OECD's report. The White Paper provides the basis for work on the better regulation agenda. Some of the key areas outlined in the White Paper relate to specific sectoral issues on which the responsible Ministers report directly to the House.
The better regulation unit in my Department is tasked with the overall promotion of the better regulation agenda across the Government system. Clearly, individual Ministers and their Departments and Offices are responsible for implementing the various elements of this agenda within their own Departments and agencies under their aegis. There are no plans to alter these arrangements. In the context of the ongoing work of the better regulation unit, I would like to outline briefly for the House progress, in particular, in the three areas of regulatory impact analysis, modernisation of the Statute Book and reviewing the economic regulatory environment.
Following a Government decision in June 2005, regulatory impact analysis, RIA, must be applied to all proposals for primary legislation, significant statutory instruments, draft EU directives and significant EU regulations. RIA is a tool which is used to assess the likely effects of a proposed new regulation or regulatory change in a structured and transparent way. In line with the terms of Towards 2016, an independent review of the operation of RIA was published in July of this year and is available on the better regulation website. It indicates that, overall, good progress has been made in relation to the implementation of regulatory impact analysis across Departments, with some 74 produced in the period between June 2005 and February 2008. The report also finds that the supports which have been made available to officials conducting RIAs are well regarded. More than 800 officials have been trained in the use of RIA. This training has resulted in a significant increase in analytical skill sets across the Civil Service. These skills help to ensure that all impacts, including unintended ones, are assessed through the RIA process, resulting in better quality legislation. The Government has agreed to implement the recommendations made in the report.
The better regulation unit of my Department has, together with the Office of the Attorney General, steered and focused work in the area of modernisation of the Statute Book. This work is designed to increase the transparency and accessibility of the Statute Book for the citizen. The statute law revision project is helping to clear away thousands of redundant and obsolete Acts so we can see what needs to be repealed and re-enacted in modern, consolidated form. Almost 3,500 obsolete pre-1922 Acts have already been repealed by the Statute Law Revision Acts 2005 and 2007.
The current phase of the statute law revision project is focusing on local, personal and private Acts. The aim is to provide a complete list of pre-1922 primary legislation which remains in force. The heads of a new statute law revision Bill were approved by the Government on 29 April 2008.
In addition, the Law Reform Commission is undertaking a programme of statute law restatement which will make legislation more accessible by providing, in the case of selected Acts, a single, up-to-date text, including all amendments. The Acts to be restated as part of the programme were selected following an extensive consultation process and reflect Government priorities. This process of restatement will also facilitate future consolidation and modernisation of legislation.
The programme for Government includes a commitment to instigate a review of the economic regulatory environment which fits well with elements of the action programme for better regulation contained in the White Paper. An interdepartmental group chaired by my Department has been tasked with advancing work in this area, for which the Economist Intelligence Unit in a partnership with Compecon Limited is undertaking an independent review to compare key economic regulators with their counterparts in the EU and the OECD and thereby address the need for stronger international benchmarks in regard to the comparative efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of regulators. It is expected this review will be completed by the end of the year.
There is only time for brief supplementary questions.
That is very exciting stuff from the Taoiseach. I have three brief questions. The Government is committed to a 25% reduction in red tape, which is a very large cost for business. An employer with eight employees recently told me that one of his staff must spend half a day each week filling Government forms. Is it planned to carry out a baseline assessment of the cost of red tape for Irish business that would apply across the board so people would know what the target is on a comparative level?
Second, an independent benchmarking report has been commissioned to address the need for stronger international data and benchmarks to assess the comparative efficiency and effectiveness of key Irish economic regulators. When is that expected to be published? Third, the report on regulatory impact analysis by an independent review was published recently. Some of the stakeholders involved in this were disappointed at the apparent lack of consultation about it. In any event, given the time put into it and its considerable cost of €108,000, when does the Taoiseach expect the review's recommendations to be implemented? Is there a programme through which that will take place and is there a target date for implementation of the recommendations?
With regard to the 25% target for reducing the administrative cost of regulation by 2012, which was agreed by the Government in February last, more than six months ago, are there any figures available on how much of that 25% target has been achieved? When does the Taoiseach intend to give some interim update on how much the cost of regulation has been reduced since that target was announced?
The 25% target for the reduction of administrative burdens arising from national legislation by 2012 is under the aegis of the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who has overall responsibility for achieving that target. In this context the Department is leading a cross-departmental project to measure the administrative burdens arising from all national legislation. The approach and methodology to be used are currently being devised and work across Departments will be co-ordinated and reported on annually by the Tánaiste.
Parallel with that, the high level group on business regulation, which consists of business representatives and officials, has been examining ways of reducing unnecessary administrative burdens in five priority areas identified by Irish business as being the most burdensome. These are taxation, health and safety, environment law, statistical returns and employment and company law. That is in line with the commitment in the programme to ensure direct feedback from business on regulatory burdens. The first report of the high level group on business regulation was published in August. A number of individual administrative burdens were measured, identifying over €20 million of savings for business. Furthermore, the group is working to support co-operation between Departments and agencies across Government with a view to simplifying procedures and reducing duplication. That work will continue to result in the reduction of costs for business as well as identifying opportunities for meaningful efficiency improvements in the public sector.
The twin processes outlined above provide for a cross-Government target-driven process while at the same time allowing a forum for specific issues to be tabled and dealt with as they are identified by the business community. The regulatory impact analysis process will be used to measure the cost of any potential administrative burdens arising from future regulations.
The Government's website page on better regulation states that the State liberalised telecommunications and describes this as a wise move that has placed the communications market on a par with many OECD countries. Does the Taoiseach not accept that the facts belie this claim? The latest European Commission survey on communications shows that Ireland lags far behind other countries. A total of 49% of homes here have an Internet connection but we rely on narrow band technology or dial-up access. This is the only EU state where more households access the Internet by narrow band than by broadband technology. What is the Government doing about this? This is one of the most important areas that must be addressed, particularly now when there are ever-growing difficulties in the employment sector and a straitened economy. There is a need for real investment in opening up opportunities for the future and broadband is one of the areas that has been critically neglected. What steps does the Government propose to take? Will the Taoiseach assure the House that such critical investment will not be set aside as part of the Government's so-called addressing of the challenging fiscal circumstances that now confront us?
With regard to the administrative burden faced by small businesses, many people who run small businesses spend their weekends at their dining room tables filling in the various survey forms that are sent out by Government offices. Not only is this a significant cost, but for many people who are new to the experience of running their own business it is an emotional and stressful burden. The Government has been talking about reducing this for some time and has spoken about putting as many as possible of the forms on-line and allowing them to be filled in on-line. The Taoiseach must be aware, from people in his constituency and the business people he knows, that our level of regulation is very old fashioned in that it still involves a great deal of form filling. We accept it is for the collection of statistical data, but small businesses are receiving a tsunami of paper. Does the Minister propose to lift that burden?
While the Taoiseach is lightening the burden of regulation for small business, what does he propose to do about the banks? During the debate on the Finance Act this year, the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Finance, said he favoured regulation with a light hand. He spoke philosophically about it for some time. Now that regulation with a light hand has brought the international economy almost to its knees, particularly in the United States, does he intend to revisit his approach to regulation of large institutions such as banks? In particular, does he propose to examine how the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator have been able to respond to the current crisis brought about by delinquent capitalism in the United States banks and, indeed, in some European banks?
The Taoiseach can only answer in so far as the questions are related to the main questions.
The questions relate to the OECD report on regulatory reform. In response to Deputy Ó Caoláin, there has been a large expansion in broadband usage and more competition in the sector. There has also been a big reduction in the cost of using broadband. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, in recent months produced a further paper setting out how he envisages the sector developing in the future, how we can meet the competitive challenge we have set ourselves in terms of trying to devise a knowledge economy and where broadband fits into that in the context of the information and communications technology sector. There has been a great deal of effort in that area. If the suggestion is that rather than having that type of environment we should have a State environment where it would be publicly provided, I doubt that we would have reached the current level of usage given the capital intensive nature of that type of investment. The market and competition in the market have helped to drive down costs and spread usage. Obviously, there is more to be done in that area.
With regard to Deputy Burton's question, we are working with our EU colleagues on improving regulation generally in the financial services area as a result of what has arisen. There are continuing challenges and these are being monitored and evaluated both nationally and at a European level as far as Ireland is concerned.