Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"1.—The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources shall prepare and publish a regulatory impact analysis of this Act prior to the commencement of the Act.".

I tabled this amendment because I am concerned the Government is not complying with its policies. This Bill is called the Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (Carbon Revenue Levy) Bill so regulation is pertinent. The Government very specifically commits itself to better regulation. The Government White Paper and the follow-on statement on the web refers to better regulation contributing to:

improving national competitiveness and better Government by ensuring that new regulations [...] are more rigorously assessed in terms of their impacts, more accessible to all and better understood. Existing regulations will be streamlined and revised, where possible, through a process of systematic review. [...] The approach [...] is both practical, in that it is action-oriented, and pragmatic in that the Government is not "for or against" regulation. Rather, the Government favours Better Regulation. Regulation is an integral part of the process of governing and it will continue to be so. Legislation and subsidiary regulations have a critical role to play in key areas of economic and social life.

It also refers to the continuing drive for competitiveness and people's expectations of high quality public services. After that preamble, the commitment is very specific:

The Government will make better use of evidence-based policy-making. This means making better use of research and analysis in both policy-making and policy implementation. Regulation is an expression of policy and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is an evidence-based approach that allows for the systematic consideration of the benefits and costs of a regulatory proposal to the economy and society.

That is what the Government says of its approach to regulation but what it does, in this Bill, is to disregard everything in the White Paper. The Minister set about introducing a new regime. Generally speaking, this would receive the support of the Opposition. The Minister then tried a sleight of hand, by attempting to introduce these measures in legislation concerning bio-fuels, which have absolutely nothing to do with the imposition of a carbon levy on electricity generation. We managed to stop the Minister on that point and argued trenchantly that separate legislation, which was transparent and open, should be introduced so that the two issues are kept apart. Thankfully, the Minister backed down and produced a separate Bill, which we are now debating.

When it comes to ensuring the impact of regulation is understood by the public, the Minister, the Department and those framing the legislation, there is no way out. According to the policy of the Government, there must be a regulatory impact analysis. However, we have not had that in this case. The Minister referred to holding many meetings. Maybe that is true, maybe it is not. I am sure he has had many meetings and that sometimes this issue arose but I imagine many meetings addressed other issues as well. This focused, analytical, evidence-based approach is different from the Minister having many meetings. The objective of robust legislation that has gone through a forensic approach promoted by the Government has not happened.

Generation companies knew something was coming down the tracks because the CER report of 2009 indicated this was the case. They approached the Department and this was activated by the private sector side. It is unlikely that the ESB or Bord Gáis will oppose this legislation. An ad hoc arrangement pertained.

The Minister will not accept my amendment because it is too late. We are on Report Stage and the Minister wants to rush this Bill through. However, it is important to hold the Minister to account because otherwise we have an example of the Government not living up to its commitments. Again, regulation is introduced without proper safeguards. One can argue that regulation is being introduced into a narrow area and the levy is being imposed but it is symptomatic of a malaise that led this country into the worst economic disaster we have ever seen. The lack of regulation, transparency and ensuring controls and safeguards in the public interest have led us to where we are. In this instance, the Bill is simple and regulatory impact analysis would have provided us with information to ensure this is the best possible legislation. The Government suggests this approach but the Minister is not following it.

See this speech in context