Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48396/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach the progress made to date in 2010 regarding the implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3180/10]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.

The OECD report Regulatory Reform in Ireland contains a wide range of recommendations. Progress on their implementation has been reported many times in the House since the report's publication, including in the context of the follow-up to the Government's White Paper on regulation Regulating Better. Individual Ministers are responsible for reporting on those recommendations relating to their sectors.

In October of last year, the Government published a Government statement on economic regulation which provides a framework for the future development of economic regulation in Ireland. The statement covers issues such as governance and accountability, the appropriateness of regulatory structures and mandates, cost effectiveness and engagement with stakeholders.

We will provide an obligation on relevant Ministers in legislation to review the roles and mandates of regulators at least every five years. Ministers will also approve planned expenditure by regulators, including any industry levies, following consultation with stakeholders. The Minister for Transport will bring forward legislation to merge the Commission for Aviation Regulation and the regulatory functions of the Irish Aviation Authority with the planned national transport authority to create a single transport regulator.

As part of the commitment in the Government statement to initiate an annual regulatory forum, I, together with other Ministers will meet with key regulators, the Competition Authority and the National Consumer Agency, on Friday of this week to discuss the implementation of the Government statement and the contribution which improved competition and regulation in all sectors can make to economic recovery and renewal. In addition to the work we have undertaken on statute law revision, individual Ministers have also undertaken significant consolidation projects, including in the key areas of company law and customs legislation.

Regulatory impact analysis is a tool used to assess the potential impacts of proposed legislation. It applies to primary legislation as well as to significant EU and secondary legislation. Revised regulatory impact assessment guidelines were published last year and take account of the need for improved quantitative analysis, in particular, and for the increased use of regulatory impact statements to evaluate draft EU legislative proposals.

The better regulation unit of my Department is currently co-ordinating the Government input to the review of Ireland's regulatory systems and processes undertaken by the OECD. The review is being conducted as part of a set of similar reviews covering the original 15 EU member states which is being funded by the EU Commission and covers issues such as regulatory impact analysis, administrative burden reduction and approaches to enforcement. It is expected that review will be completed later this year.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was at a meeting in the OECD last weekend with a number of Deputies. The organisation has much objective analysis available to Governments and members of parliaments throughout Europe. Some of it is very valuable.

It is two years since the Government published its commitment to reduce the cost of administrative red tape in business by 25%. Has the Government ever carried out a baseline study of the cost of business in Ireland due to regulation? It is very important given that businesses are drying up by the day, for a variety of reasons. Has the Taoiseach received a report on how far the Government has advanced in bringing about the 25% reduction in red tape for business?

Has the Government considered reducing government costs, be they associated with regulation or applications for licences? Businesses state these costs are the cause of severe difficulties for them at a time of financial pressure. What has the Government done to consider the cost of doing business and has it any intention of reducing costs, such as the costs of regulation, applications for licences and the associated red tape, in areas in which it clearly has an input?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There have been a number. As I said in my reply, there are specific questions to be asked about specific Departments. Questions on the effectiveness of certain regulatory arrangements would be best addressed to the Ministers concerned. On the matter raised by Deputy Kenny, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is leading the project and has measured administrative burdens in its three main areas of legislation that have an impact on business, namely, company law, employment law and health and safety law. The final draft results of that measurement exercise were validated by business in December 2009. These results form the basis of plans in those three areas regarding how to better simplify the arrangements. It is envisaged that a similar process will follow measurement in the other participating Departments.

Five priority areas have been identified by Irish businesses as being the most burdened. These include taxation, health and safety, environment law, statistical returns, and employment and company law. It is in line with the commitment in the programme for Government to ensure direct feedback from business on regulatory burdens.

The first report of the high-level group on business regulation, published in March 2008, indicates a number of individual administrative burdens were measured, identifying over €20 million in savings for business. The group is working across Government to support co-operation between Departments and agencies with a view to simplifying procedures and reducing duplication. This work will continue to result in the reduction of costs for business and identify opportunities for meaningful efficiency improvements in the public sector.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the recommendations of the original OECD report, which was implemented by the Government, was the abolition of the groceries order. That was supposed to promote greater competition, a reduction in prices and better value for the consumer. We now find that big multiples, such as Tesco, are extracting or seeking to extract large sums of money from Irish suppliers just to put their products on their shelves. A report last week suggested the multiples are trying to get €500,000 per time from Irish suppliers in order to stock their products. Has this practice been drawn to the attention of the Taoiseach and how will it be dealt with? Some sectors of the business community are encountering difficulties associated with over-regulation, or certainly over-enthusiastic regulation, and other sectors, such as the one I have described, are not subject to any regulation.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Again, the specific sectoral issues that arise should be addressed to the Minister concerned. Thankfully, prices came down last year and all the statistical data confirm that. Whether that can be totally accounted for by the abolition of the groceries order is a moot point but it is a fact that food prices have come down. With regard to the issue of "Hello" money, I understand the National Consumer Agency has been pursuing this matter but proof is not as easily obtained evidentially as it is anecdotally. One understands that there might well be pressures on suppliers as to how frank or candid they might be on this, but clearly it is a practice, if it exists in any area of the retail trade or in the abuse of a dominant position by large multiples, which cannot be condoned in any circumstances.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that the Taoiseach does not condone it but we have a situation where, particularly in the grocery sector, a couple of very large supermarket multiples are dominating the market. They are using that dominance to adopt all types of unfair practices against suppliers. The Taoiseach is correct that it is difficult to get proof. Suppliers are afraid to tell what they know about what is happening because they are afraid their produce will simply not be stocked, which is not an option in these times. The Tánaiste, in reply to my question about this last Thursday, said a draft code of practice has been in her Department for some time. I understand it is her intention to implement that code of practice but not on a statutory basis. That will not do the trick. This must be dealt with in a very forceful way.

The other issue I wish to raise is the position of the Law Reform Commission. On the last occasion that he replied to these questions the Taoiseach referred to the work being done by the commission in respect of a programme of statute law restatement. The an bord snip nua report recommended the abolition of the Law Reform Commission. What is the Government's position with regard to the commission? Is it intended to abolish it? What is its intended future? I note that the chairperson of the commission was recently re-appointed for a 12-month period. What is the long-term intention regarding the Law Reform Commission?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will be aware that, having acknowledged that €4 billion in savings was required in the last budget, a series of proposals was put forward by a body established by the Minister for Finance, which included that recommendation. It was not taken up on this occasion by the Government. Obviously, there are further adjustments to be made in future budgets and I cannot anticipate the outcome of those Cabinet discussions.

The original purpose for which the Law Reform Commission was established, to modernise our legal framework and to assist in bringing forward proposals and initiatives, has served us reasonably well. There was varying success and varying degrees of productivity, outcome and relevance depending on the chairperson and, indeed, the staff that occupy an organisation at any given time. If memory serves, the commission was established in the 1960s. As a law practitioner myself, I recognise that it has been a force for good in terms of modernising the law. It has done some very good academic and other work in proposing areas of law that require modernisation and updating. Mrs. Justice McGuinness has been re-appointed for a further year so obviously the chairmanship will proceed into next year and she was agreeable to that. We will deal with the matter as a budgetary issue from time to time but I cannot, nor should I, give a blanket confirmation of all these agencies being available in their current form given the budgetary challenges we face.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach agree that the entire regulatory reform agenda needs to be re-assessed? Is he aware the Government website on this matter states:

[R]egulatory reform is helping Ireland to manage the consequences of fast growth and to build new capacities to sustain growth into the future. For example, regulatory reform is seen as a way to open up important infrastructure and policy bottlenecks.

It also speaks of labour shortages. I suggest it is written for different times than the very difficult economic circumstances in which we are currently. Would the Taoiseach indicate that this issue will be revisited? I have seen this - it is exemplified on many occasions - as part of a failed policy in support of the privatisation of public services, because time after time it has been suggested public is bad and private is good. Would the Taoiseach see as completely unacceptable the policy of the European Union, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, has led to local authorities in this State having their VAT exemption taken from them in the Finance Bill? It was done under the guise of so-called benefits to the consumer and to foster competition. The reality is this will lead to greater costs for the consumer. It will not result in reduced costs for the individual consumer regarding the services currently provided by local authorities. We will see this policy unfold over the time ahead.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the matter raised by Deputy Gilmore regarding retail practices, the Taoiseach may be correct in stating prices have reduced. He is definitely correct when he said evidential proof is much more difficult to get than anecdotal evidence. I conducted a survey among vegetable growers in the country. One response stated: "I will not give my name. Welcome to the world of supermarket supply where a shut mouth is necessary to feed your family". It is high time we went beyond the notion that we can have a voluntary code of practice. We have to put some more substantial in place. The Taoiseach is worried about job creation. Job losses will happen around the country in the agrifood supply sector if we do not do something about it, sooner rather than later.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recently heard an interview with the new IFA president who commended the Tánaiste for the work she was doing in this area and acknowledged this was an issue which had to be continued to be pursued with the multiples. The whole question of a fair price being provided and Irish producers having fair access to the shelves of Irish supermarkets is a very important priority for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Mary Coughlan. The need for the avoidance of sharp practice and unethical behaviour is something which needs to be transparently available for everyone to see.

I agree there are a lot of market pressures on people who, anecdotally, can clearly say certain things in private but are not in a position to pursue them through a legal remedy for reasons which are obvious. That shows the imbalance of power between the producer and retailer in this area. It is a phenomenon with which primary producers across Europe have to contend. We are finding that happens, in particular with the advent of British multiples coming to Ireland. Their distribution arrangements, in terms of where they source their products, how they bring them in and where they bring them from, is a huge issue and one which about which we have to continue to be vigilant and supportive of everybody who is trying to ensure Irish producers get a fair deal in this situation. No one is looking for anything other than competitive, fair competition in all respects.

Regarding Deputy Ó Caoláin's comments, regulation is in place to facilitate competition and to provide a better and more diverse range of services for the public. With regard to that situation there is competition in place and under that directive the requirement to have a level playing field requires that VAT be payable on services provided. I do not believe that is the case if the local authority is in a monopoly position. It is a question of having to implement the VAT directives and that is one of the disciplines we must undertake in view of our access to a single European market. The Single Market provides us with a huge host of opportunities for exporting our products.