Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

If I can separate the issues, the legislation listed by the Deputy covers a broad range of specialist areas. IFSRA was established for a particular reason in the financial area, likewise the Health and Safety Authority and many of the other regulatory bodies.

I will deal first with regulatory impact analysis before coming to the issue of a super-regulator. Under regulatory impact analysis, before introducing legislation, statutory instruments or new powers the issue is examined to find out if there is another simpler way of dealing with it, whether more bureaucracy is needed or if legislation is already in place which takes the issue into account so that we end up with fewer rules and less regulation. There are areas, including health and safety, for which one must have regulators. For example, IFSRA is needed for financial reasons and prudential control of the country. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure legislation is as simple as possible. The solution to every problem is not more regulation and legislation. At some of the meetings and discussions on this issue I attended people asked if this type of analysis did not always take place. It does not because over the years people sat down and decided to regulate to solve problems. Later on, however, nobody implemented much of the regulation. The aim is at least to have a process in place.

The Deputy's point on having a super-regulator is different and has some merit. The recommendations to merge a number of regulators and create a larger, multi-sector regulatory body was made by the enterprise strategy group last year in its report, Ahead of the Curve. The recommendation was considered by the better regulation group and discussed at some length under the chairmanship of my Department which is tasked with implementing the White Paper.

The White Paper recognises the value of ongoing assessment of the possibilities of rationalising the present system. My Department accepts that strengthening ties between the regulators and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and the Competition Authority would be beneficial. Some cost savings would arise from the super-regulator approach by having shared facilities and expertise but, according to officials of my Department, given the disparate nature of some of the functions that independent regulators deal with, from licensing to travel agents to the building of new power stations, the extent of the potential synergies may be over-stated. The matter should still be examined. The question of the public and political accountability of any super-regulator would also need careful consideration.

The debate about the number of regulators sometimes misses the point because the real issue is the quality of the decision making by regulators. Are we getting better outcomes in key regulated areas? This will be the debate in the future. Is it better to have experts acting as regulators and, if not, why not? Are the regulators fulfilling their functions both in respect of the players in the market and consumers? Do regulators have sufficient powers and clear mandates? Can we strengthen their powers of sanction? Can we limit recourse to the courts by parties wishing to frustrate regulatory decisions made in the public interest?

The view of my Department is that answering these questions is a difficult task and the solutions are likely to go beyond the simple issue of the number of regulators. After all, I do not want to be here in a couple of years addressing the problem of overly powerful super-regulators or, for that matter, anybody else.

See this speech in context