Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15401/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 15 June 2004
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the progress made by the quality customer service working group within his Department established under the strategic management initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15406/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraEnda Kenny
Ceist:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress on the implementation of those aspects of the strategic management initiative which are the responsibility of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15414/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16323/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraPat Rabbitte
Ceist:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress to date with regard to those areas of the SMI for which his Department is responsible and the quality customer service working group within his Department established under the SMI; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16324/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his Department’s implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16345/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in implementing the OECD’s report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16443/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (39 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, together.
My Department has responsibility for overall co-ordination and promotion of the modernisation programme for the Civil Service through the implementation group of Secretaries General which is chaired by the Secretary General of my Department. A number of sub-groups oversee progress in the different strands of the modernisation programme and these initiatives are taken forward in close collaboration between my Department and the Department of Finance.
I am pleased to note that significant progress continues to be recorded with the modernisation programme and, in particular, with the commitments to modernisation included in Sustaining Progress. A progress report on implementation of the these commitments across the Civil Service was submitted to the Civil Service performance verification group prior to the pay increases granted last January and this report has been published on the Department of Finance website. A further progress report will be considered by the PVG in advance of the payment due on 1 July next and it is also intended to publish this. These reports record progress across a wide range of areas including, for example, more use of competitive promotions and greater open recruitment of staff, development of new financial information systems and a recent evaluation of the performance management and development system in the Civil Service.
The quality customer service initiative is another aspect of the modernisation programme and good progress in this area continues to be made under the guidance of the working group chaired by Mr. Frank Daly, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners. The most significant recent development has been the customer charter initiative. Following the publication of guidelines by the working group, many Departments and offices have already published their charters, with the remainder scheduled to do so within the coming months. Departments and offices were required to consult their customers and establish service standards in their charter based on customer needs. They will also be required to report on performance against these standards in their annual report. The working group organised training and other supports to assist Departments and offices during the preparation of their charters and will continue to monitor progress.
Other projects overseen by the working group in the recent past include publication of a report on internal customer service in January 2004 and identifying projects from across the public service that demonstrate innovative approaches to improving the quality of service and administration. These will be show-cased at events in Dublin, Limerick and Cork during July.
With regard to better regulation, which is also specifically raised by a number of Deputies, considerable progress has been achieved since the publication of the OECD report on regulatory reform in Ireland. Many of the recommendations related to specific sectoral issues and progress in this regard was recorded in a report published by the high level group on regulation in January 2003. A central element of the Government's response to the OECD report was the formulation of a White Paper on better regulation. As the Deputy may be aware, I launched the White Paper in January 2004 and copies are available in the Oireachtas Library.
The White Paper sets out six core principles of better regulation and a detailed action plan to translate these principles into how we design, implement and review legislation and regulations. Key actions include introduction of regulatory impact analysis, RIA, initially on a pilot basis; new systematic reviews of existing regulations in key areas; improvements to our approach to sectoral regulation; a renewed drive to tackle red tape; and greater clarity and accessibility of regulation. A new better regulation group is being established to oversee implementation of the actions outlined in the White Paper, and I hope it will meet within the coming weeks.
Another important action arising from the White Paper is a programme of Statute Law revision to identify legislation in need of repeal, revision or consolidation. This will ensure the Statute Book is up to date and more accessible. A key element of this programme is a project to update pre-1922 legislation and, as the first phase, a consultation process is under way on the list of legislation proposed for repeal. As already stated, another key action in the White Paper is the development of a system of regulatory impact analysis as recommended by the OECD. A working group of officials has developed an approach to RIA which would be suitable for the Irish legislative and policy making context. It is intended to pilot this shortly in a number of Departments.
Overall, good progress has been achieved in implementing the change and modernisation agenda in the Civil Service. As I have already stated, this is extensively documented through the performance verification process established under the Sustaining Progress agreement. As well as verifying progress in the Civil Service as a whole, each Department and office submits progress reports and these demonstrate that considerable advances continue to be achieved at local level, leading to continued improvements in the quality and efficiency of services provided to the public.
I see an unusually large attendance of backbenchers to listen to the Taoiseach today. Obviously the word is out.
We are always here.
I suppose it is back to reality with a bang. Has the Taoiseach taken note of the Tánaiste's post-election comments about the necessity to speed up the process of deregulation? After seven years, it appears as if some Departments are quite lax in this regard. Does he agree with her comments?
In respect of OECD regulatory reform, an issue raised on numerous occasions, will the Taoiseach outline what progress, if any, has been made on removing the barrier of entry into the Irish market facing foreign educated pharmacists? This is causing a deal of controversy.
Will the Taoiseach comment on a recent report from IBEC which found that in 2004, three years after the publication of the OECD report, red tape is costing Irish business €600 million per year? This backs up earlier claims by ISME, which stated in its report that the Government is seen as a barrier to progress rather than a facilitator of enterprise. Will the Taoiseach comment on these reports?
With regard to the first issue and the Tánaiste's remarks, the OECD report is being implemented and I have given a detailed reply on where this is being done. Deregulation and regulation are not always the same issue. Regulation results in additional costs for business but, in many cases, it is necessary. The OECD, working group and cross-departmental group have all pointed in recent years to the areas in which there should be change and others where perhaps regulation is strengthened.
IBEC and ISME tend to take the view that regulation is unnecessary. They find everything a burden, but it is necessary to have regulation. For example, people are calling for more health and safety regulation and compliance. We are not in a position where we are trying to get rid of all regulation. The Cabinet has just finalised a health and safety Bill, which will introduce more regulation, but it is necessary to do that, while we are trying to eliminate these issues in other areas.
With regard to pharmacies, the pharmacy review group was set up following the OECD report on regulatory reform. It was asked to review the 1996 pharmacy regulations and, among other matters, the pharmacy issues raised in the report. The group's principal task was to assess the existing statutory restrictions on entry to the community pharmacy sector that placed restrictions on access to pharmacy contracts under the 1996 regulations. The group submitted its report early last year.
The Minister for Health and Children has examined the legal and other issues surrounding the group's recommendations and the report will be published shortly. He has stated he intends to consolidate and update existing pharmacy legislation. Broadly, the proposed Bill will provide for the safe and effective delivery of pharmaceutical services to all citizens through a comprehensive, manageable and robust legislative framework. It will address, in particular, the education, training, registration and control of pharmacists and it will incorporate the recommendations of the pharmacy review group.
The Taoiseach did not comment on IBEC's statement that red tape is costing businesses €600 million per year.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has received the steering group's report to Government on the review of the Garda's structures and organisation. Has the Cabinet discussed it? Does the Taoiseach accept a recommendation in the report that the closure of some Garda stations in Dublin and throughout the country should proceed? In light of that and the Government's failure to deliver on its promise of 2,000 extra gardaí, will there be a reduction in the number of gardaí following the implementation of the report?
A detailed question to the Minister might be more appropriate.
I know the Chair will be more lenient than before the break.
The Chair will implement Standing Orders as decided by the House.
Perhaps it might not always be from this quarter that verbal fire is directed at the Chair.
Will the SMI report on the structure and organisation of the Garda be published and the information and recommendations contained in it made available to the public?
I thought I answered the question on IBEC. Business interests tend to take the view that regulation with which they must comply is a burden on them. The ISME and IBEC reports pointed out that for every eight people employed by small businesses, half of one person's time is taken up by this. That is how they use the cost base. They are included in all regulations. Where we can get rid of red tape and regulations we should do so, but there are other areas which should be regulated.
Those organisations cannot take a simple analysis. I have no disagreement with their stated position on getting rid of unnecessary red tape, but not in a broad sweep. It would be wrong to get rid of all requirements in terms of statutory reports from the CSO or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. That would be wrong and I do not agree with the broad-brush statement.
The issue of the gardaí does not come under the Civil Service process. The Government has stated that the 2003 levels would be maintained, that recruitment and training would stay at those levels, and that when finances returned to the position at which we put a ceiling on that level we would return to that issue. We said those levels would not decrease in the meantime and that was the position. The Deputy should take the reports issue up with the Minister but it does not come under regulatory reform.
Was the Taoiseach's attention drawn to a recent speech by the chairman of Independent News Media, Dr. Tony O'Reilly, about over-regulation and excessive red tape being a cost on business, possibly to the extent that it is detrimental to employment? Does the Taoiseach agree with those views?
As I said, the idea of the OECD report was that Ireland would take a lead on this issue. At that stage only one other country had prepared a paper on better regulation so we were in front in looking at how better regulation can make the process more cost-effective and simpler. It does not mean that we remove all regulation, and business interests continually make that point. We are trying to operate better regulations and, as I said, there is a new group to take forward the next phase of the White Paper. We set out our views in the White Paper.
The questions raised by the chairman of Independent News and Media and others are exactly the questions highlighted in the White Paper. I am glad the White Paper is generating interest in so many areas, not just among business groups. The questions raised are, is regulation necessary, is regulation properly targeted and framed appropriately, have we consulted stakeholders, is there an effective appeals process and will the regulations give rise to conflicts and anomalies. Those are the questions posed, and the chairman of Independent News and Media and others have said that we should try to simplify the mechanisms which are in place and, in so far as possible, we should only use regulation where it is absolutely proven to stand up to the questions I mentioned. That is a fair approach by those interests.
Deputy Kenny asked about costs. It has been stated that any cost involved in regulation is a cost too much, but I do not agree with that view. It is necessary to have regulation in some areas and that business comply with regulation.
The Tánaiste mentioned the need to take hard decisions and she referred specifically to different aspects of the OECD recommendations. Does the Taoiseach agree with her that the Government ought to proceed to take those hard decisions or does he take a different view?
The Government makes hard and easy decisions. It makes whatever decisions are necessary. The Government has been, and will be, engaged in reforms in many areas. We have ongoing discussions on transport, health, reform of the issues mentioned, including the OECD reform which affects the Civil Service. These are issues in which the Government is, and will continue to be, actively engaged and which were outlined in Sustaining Progress. These are areas in which we will continue to make decisions, as necessary.
In the Government's White Paper on better regulation there is a list of actions relating to the legislative process and one calls for better information on new legislation. It promises that Departments and offices will provide such improved information, including the draft heads of new and promised legislation. I have asked the Taoiseach this question before and I am revisiting it despite the assurance that this would happen. On how many Bills did we receive advance notice of heads of the Bill following agreement? Unless the Taoiseach's information runs contrary to mine, why has this commitment not been proceeded with and implemented?
I will not go back over past legislation but will take a Bill which will be taken in the future, and perhaps the Taoiseach will give us a commitment rather than revisit the reason this commitment has not been acted on heretofore. In regard to the proposed health Bill which will deal with the implementation of the Hanly report, will the Taoiseach give us a commitment on whether and how soon we will see the published heads of that Bill, in line with the recommendations and commitment detailed in the Government's White Paper on regulatory reform?
In the case of some legislation, it is necessary to circulate the heads of the Bill for discussion, but on amending or consolidating legislation, there is not the same requirement. What is recommended in the OECD report and by the various groups I mentioned in the reply is that when legislation is being prepared the State and Departments should see whether legislation is absolutely necessary and if it is the only way to go, that we should not legislate if it is unnecessary and is just another burden. If, however, legislation is necessary, we should have discussion with the stakeholders, the organisations, and that happens on a regular basis. When legislation is announced, those affected will make their observations known, look for meetings and engage in the lobbying process. That happens as a matter of form. The report states that it should perhaps happen at an earlier stage and that it should not be left until the legislation is almost drafted. Departments are now advised to do that, particularly in regard to new legislation and new concepts. The high level group will monitor that to make sure it is done. In some cases, heads of Bills are brought before committees of this House for debate.
In regard to health, all the health reports and reports on reform set out what should happen in the future. The new health Bill will be based on what is in those reports. That information is in the public domain. The Minister will draft the legislation based on the suggestions in those four or five reports and he is working on that at present.
The Taoiseach gave us a partial answer in some ways. I wish to ask about the other side of the OECD report on regulatory reform which cited a criticism of the Government in not allowing consumer interests to be properly represented in policy debate and deliberation. Will the Taoiseach inform the House whether the Government is reflecting on that criticism and if it will act on it by providing for representation of consumer groups or the Consumers' Association of Ireland in the social partnership process?
In regard to regulatory reform being a key part of the Lisbon Agenda, will the Taoiseach inform the House whether he is taking on board the views of the Institute of European Affairs which praised the Government on one hand, but, on the other, cited this country as one of those least willing to improve in terms of sustainable development and social protection? Will he assure Members that the reforms to Ireland's regulatory regime will not produce further deterioration in the areas of sustainable development and social protection? Is that an assurance he gave in terms of a "Yes" or "No" answer?
The answer to the Deputy's second question is "Yes". It is necessary to try to ensure, as I said as the outset, that when we need to make changes, it is done by way of regulation, not deregulation. We are trying to simplify matters and, where protections are needed, it is important to ensure that social protections are included. In the area of environmental matters, sustainable development is the key issue.
Regarding the Deputy's first question, he raised that issue with me last year when I answered a similar question on customer quality groups and consumer interest. I said at that time that we would consider that proposal. We have now included groups from the Consumers' Association of Ireland and the Small Firms Association, and representatives of the Disability Federation, the National Disability Authority and the National and Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism. The Consumers' Association of Ireland is also represented on the main departmental group. Therefore, representation of the consumer group is included in the membership of key central group driving this process.
Will the Taoiseach agree that regulatory reform is in reality a codename for, among other matters, the wholesale privatisation of crucial public services such as electricity, gas, airports and so on? Where stands the Government on the thrust towards privatisation following the message from the electorate on 11 June? In the past 24 hours we have heard Ministers who normally assume quite a bullish demeanour——
The Deputy should ask a question.
——metamorphose into simpering pussycats, full of social concern and empathy. I detected even a slight tremor on the lower lip of some of them. Where does that stand beside the strident demands of the Tánaiste who, as Fianna Fáil heads have rolled throughout the country, like a latter-day Madame Defarge, wants to knit even faster——
Has the Deputy a question? He will appreciate that this is Taoiseach's Question Time.
——and speed up the tumbrils? The Tánaiste wants to hasten more public services to the privatisation guillotine, close more accident and emergency units and leave a scorched earth policy in the public sector.
If the Deputy does not have another question, I will call on the Taoiseach to answer his first one.
Is there now a conflict between, on the one hand, the Tánaiste and the Progressive Democrats Ministers who want to speed up the privatisation of public services and, on the other, the terrified Fianna Fáil rank and file?
I would have thought the Deputy would have been half way to Europe to try to convince his socialist colleagues that, collectively, they are all wrong and he is all right, but unfortunately they are saved that experience.
The Taoiseach could always demand a recount.
Poor Royston.
Allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
We know the Deputy had to wait until the third day to get his result. If we had electronic voting, he could have had that result before he went to bed the first night.
At least we could check the figures.
On the question of introducing better regulation as against deregulation, that is not the issue. As I explained at the outset, there are some areas we can regulate and it makes sense, is efficient and cost-effective to do so. Such regulation is good for business, the citizen, the consumer and is much more cost-effective from the point of view of driving forward productive areas. That argument has been well-made. The answer to the Deputy's question is "No" because better regulation involves improving the processes of policy formulation, legislative drafting and enhancing the overall effectiveness and coherence of regulation. It is not about loosely-defined privatisation or deregulation.
Better regulation does not necessarily mean deregulation. In some cases consumers, investors and the broader public interest might best be served by introducing new regulation. I have made that point clear in answer to a number of questions. Other cases, however, may be served best by removing regulation. Deregulation means the partial or complete elimination of regulation in a sector to improve economic performance. As such, it can be regarded as a sub-set of better regulations and one option that can be taken in practice.
It is widely recognised that better regulation demands a more sophisticated approach and the OECD report, which is the subject matter of these questions, noted that a deregulation programme by itself is usually too limited and is often neither possible nor desirable. The focus has shifted in many countries, including those of the European Union, from deregulation to smarter, simpler and better regulation. That is the issue; it is not a question of privatisation. In its short-term agenda, the Government has no particular proposals on privatisation, even though many workers in certain sectors would like to have ESOPs. We have said that we will take these issues on a case by case basis when it is strategically correct to do so.
Section 1.4 of the Government's White Paper stated, "Departments and offices will adopt best practices regarding providing better quality information on legislation, including draft heads of a Bill to be published where feasible and appropriate." In how many cases have the draft heads of Bills published been circulated to Members of the House? Will the draft heads of the proposed Health Bill, that will implement the Hanly report and the establishment of the health services executive, be published and circulated to Members and, if so, when?
As regards the Deputy's first question, I do not have a particular number. However, it is not new that heads of a Bill would be given to committees in various cases. That is not a new process but the report says we should do it more often. It is up to each Department to do so and that is what has been recommended. Departments are being monitored in that respect so we will see it occurring more often.
The reform process envisaged by the Health Bill is so complex that the draft heads should certainly be produced.
I would like to believe the Taoiseach when he talks about further reforms not producing a further deterioration in areas of sustainable development and social protection. However, the IEA report on the Lisbon scorecard does not indicate that it will be possible for the Taoiseach to do very easily.
As regards regulatory reform, will the Taoiseach change the fact that our GDP and national social protection is the lowest in the EU, in percentage terms? Will the Taoiseach re-examine what he said at the conclusion of the EU Spring Council when he promised a cost-benefit analysis of climate change issues, so that no harm would be done to competitiveness? Will that matter make it difficult to integrate the Taoiseach's belief that there should not be further deterioration and his ability to deliver on it, given the commitments he has already made and the low percentage of GDP that is being spent on social protection?
The Deputy's question was a more general question on social protection. An enormous amount of money is spent on social protection, which covers all areas and is not within the ambit of an individual Department. A cost factor arises in any legislation that contains social protection for citizens, which is not just the figure provided in economic statistics. That would not be the entire figure because, when one takes into account our social welfare system and the schemes run by the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Transport, there is social protection in legislation across a range of areas.
Is the European Commission wrong?
The figure it uses would not include all areas. I am not as familiar with this issue as when I was Minister for Labour, but then the Commission just used a narrow figure which was easily taken and was unconnected with anything else — it would not have included all social protection.
The Lisbon strategy includes the economic, social and environmental strands which have been running since the Stockholm meeting in 1999. Sustainable development and environmental protections have to applied in an holistic way as part of any reforms or changes — they cannot be left out of the equation. When we talk about the drive for competition, more efficiencies and less or more regulations, it cannot be at the expense of sustainable development. That is why Goran Persson, the then Prime Minister, added the environmental aspects to the original Portuguese strategy of economic and social reform. Since then, sustainable development has had to part of all the examinations and studies. That is strictly watched and controlled by both the European Commission and the Lisbon strategy groups in the European Parliament and it is done so fairly well. Therefore, it is not competition in isolation, but rather competition as part of honouring economic, social and environmental issues.