I echo the Ceann Comhairle's welcome to our visitors.

Can the Taoiseach say what progress has been made towards publication of the White Paper on regulation in 2003, and the introduction of the regulatory impact analysis which he told us about in February, given the importance of impact analysis for regulatory activity? Would he accept, for example, that because the inflation rate is twice the eurozone average and personal debt stands at €56 billion, according to the economist Dan White, many people are concerned that in many cases regulation tends to be followed by rationalisation and layoffs? Would he for that reason consider it a priority to move on impact analysis before proceeding with deregulation in any other area?

Would he take note of the International Institute for Management Development report which shows that Ireland is no longer among the top ten most competitive smaller economies? Would he accept that Ireland has never been competitive when it came to sustainability and encouraging enterprise based on long-term sustainability? Renewable energy is a topic that we have discussed many times. It is an acid test of future competitiveness. Would the Taoiseach agree that unless sustainable activities are competitive that competitiveness is a short-term thing about which to boast?

Would the Taoiseach accept that there are certain natural monopolies which it may be counterproductive to deregulate? For example, An Post was in conflict recently with the regulator for trying to locate letter boxes at the roadside rather than in people's houses in rural areas. Would he agree that to maintain levels of service in the community and quality of life, there are certain enterprises that have a natural monopoly? Will that be taken into account?

The Deputy asked two questions. On the second question, about competitiveness, if one wants to achieve anything on that agenda it must be based on trying to improve and sustain the situation. There is little point in doing it, boasting about it or criticising it on the basis of any analysis other than its usefulness to the economy in terms of creating jobs, wealth and regenerating resources into services.

What about the environment?

That includes the environment. With regard to natural monopolies, there are areas where it does not make sense to break these up because turning a public sector monopoly into a private sector monopoly does not achieve much. Breaking a public service monopoly into a number of parts does not necessarily make it more efficient. The issue of the post boxes is being dealt with but I do not want to encroach on the area of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. We should not just take the view that deregulation is a good idea in every area. Neither the OECD nor the EU say that we should deregulate for that reason.

As regards the Deputy's first question, concerning the high-level group which is taking on the next phase of the OECD report, I will cover some of this ground again as I have dealt with it regarding Deputy Rabbitte's question. The group examined those findings. The national statement of Government policy on better regulation, which will be published shortly, will have as its ultimate objective to seek to identify the core principles that make up regulatory impact analysis and to inform future decision making. As regards the need for regulation in the future, or changes to existing regulations, it has made many other proposals that I have not discussed today about composite legislation, condensing legislation and the means of updating legislation. They are set out in the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002 which continually updates and consolidates legislation.

The high-level group was asked to consider this issue and it recommended that the first step in the preparation of the policy should be a consultation process. That process and the economic analysis are done and published. Without reciting the issues and going over the same ground, a few examples under some of the main headings might give the House an idea of some of the questions raised in the consultation document. These are likely to be further developed in the context of the paper that is to be issued. There are three sections and I propose to outline some of the headings therein: the performance of the economy and consumer welfare; how to ensure that consumers' rights and interests are protected and promoted; how regulatory reform might contribute to national competitiveness and strengthen the operation of competition policy in the country; and, whether the regulatory system is supporting infrastructural developments and what improvements might be made in that regard. The group will argue over and come to recommendations on those headings.

Regarding efficiencies in the public sector, regulatory impact assessment, on which I have already given details, will examine proposed new regulations in keeping with a results-orientated approach to management of the public services. As I have already explained, there will be ongoing systematic review and simplification of existing regulations. There will be new legislative procedures to consolidate, restate and enhance the accessibility of existing legislation. Rather than having out-of-date legislation or always having to go back over five or six Bills, we will use the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002 to update legislation continually.

The third section on which the group will report is the quality of governance, including what forms of institution are appropriate to governing newly liberalised sectors and what regulatory reforms are needed in such contexts, a question that Deputy Rabbitte raised regarding controlling regulators and what rules should apply to them. It will also assess whether there is a need for legislation on administrative procedures in the Irish context and how the use of alternatives to regulation can be more widely considered.