Tithe an Oireachtais
An Comhchoiste um Fhiontraíocht agus Mionghnóthaí
An Ceathrú Tuarascáil
Nuálaíocht, Iomaíocht agus Rialáil
- Comhardú a Bhaint Amach
Aibreán 2005
_________________________
Houses of the Oireachtas
Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business
Fourth Report
Innovation, Competition and Regulation
- Achieving the Balance
April 2005
Chairman’s Foreword
The Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business agreed, as part of its Work
Programme, to examine the increase in the number of regulators and regulatory
authorities.
The Joint Committee appointed Mr. Phil Hogan TD, as rapporteur, to undertake the
examination and to present a report for consideration. The report entitled
‘Innovation, Competition and Regulation - Achieving the Balance’ was considered
by the Joint Committee and it was decided to seek the observations of the relevant
Government Departments and that these observations would be furnished within
four weeks. The Joint Committee, upon receipt of the observations will follow up
the recommendations contained in the report.
The Joint Committee wishes to thank Deputy Hogan for the excellent work that he
has carried out in the preparation of the report.
The Joint Committee recommend this report to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
_________________________
Donie Cassidy, T.D.,
Chairman.
13th April, 2005.
Innovation, Competition & Regulation
- Achieving The Balance
A Report Prepared for
The Committee on Enterprise & Small Business
Phil Hogan TD
March 2005
Innovation, Competition & Regulation
- Achieving The Balance
PAGE NO.
1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………
2
2. The Role of Regulation ……………………………………………………
4
3. The Cost of Regulation ……………………………………………………
5
4. The Negative Aspects of Regulation …………………………………….
6
4.1 Over-Regulation …………………………………………
6
4.2 Lack of Accountability ………………………………….
7
4.3 Poor Quality Regulation ……………………………….
8
4.4 Costs of Compliance ……………………………………
8
4.5 Regulatory Capture …………………………………….
9
4.6 Sectoral Problems ………………………………………
10
5. European Union ……………………………………………………………
11
6. Impact on Small Businesses ……………………………………………..
11
7. Exemptions for Small Businesses ……………………………………….
12
8. Better Regulation …………………………………………………………..
13
Innovation, Competition & Regulation
- Achieving The Balance
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the middle of the 1990s, Ireland has witnessed a growth in the
number of regulators and regulatory authorities. Regulation was mandatory
in some instances as a consequence of EU obligations or deemed a
necessity in circumstances where the State had previously been the
shareholder and regulator of key aspects of economic activity.
Consequently, regulators were appointed for Telecommunications (1997),
Energy (1999 & 2000) and Aviation (2001) and Health Insurance (2003). In
other instances, regulatory bodies were established in response to concerns
about accountability and transparency in key sectors such as financial
services (2003). The establishment of the Office of the Director of Corporate
Enforcement and the new Irish Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority
were in direct response to concerns about standards in general corporate
behaviour, while the Competition Authority has a regulatory role to ensure
greater competition across all sectors of the economy. A list of the Irish
regulatory authorities and the years they were established is set out below.
Regulator
CER
Commission for Aviation Regulation
Competition Authority
ComReg
Environmental Protection Agency
Health & Safety Authority
Health Insurance Authority
ODCE
IAASA
IFSRA
Taxi Regulator
Established
1999
2001
1991
2002
1993
1989
2001
2001
2004
2003
2004
In some particular sectors there are additional regulatory aspects, ranging
from measures designed to ensure safety in the workplace, to measures
designed to ensure food safety. Many regulatory measures arise through
statutory obligations imposed on businesses and consumers.
While the establishment of new regulatory agencies has been seen as
positive and an indication of progress in key areas, the experience is not
altogether positive. Some commentators have claimed that overlaying the
relatively small Irish economy with such a complex and multifaceted
regulatory structure is bound to create additional costs and burdens that will
not be matched by obvious benefits. Many of the regulatory structures
introduced into Irish business life have been criticised by business groups
as burdensome for Irish businesses, without delivering the expected
benefits for consumers or the State. In some instances it is clear that
regulatory authorities have suffered from the creation and maintenance of
unrealistic expectations about their impact. In some cases the appointment
of a regulator to a sector has been expected to revolutionise aspects of
economic activity that have been under monopoly control for decades.
There are signs that the public expectations of the role of regulators may
now be more realistic, and some regulators are also moving to more
narrowly define their role and responsibilities.
While Government has taken steps through the Better Regulation
Programme, to tackle any new or additional regulatory burdens being placed
on business, there remains a legacy of legislation and a regulatory structure
that is adding to the costs of doing business in Ireland. It is important that
these costs are assessed, quantified and measured against any resultant
benefits to the economy arising from regulation.
2. THE ROLE OF REGULATION
What is the role of regulation in a modern economy? Regulation has
generally been introduced into a sector when the existing market either fails
or is not seen to be competitive. Market failure usually occurs when there is
evidence of the following:

Information and asymmetry problems between buyers and sellers

Market concentration and natural monopoly

Too few markets or non-competitive behaviour

Negative external effects
Regulation is designed to protect competition, not competitors. It is
recognised as an imperative where markets need to be liberalised, given the
absence of any voluntary competitive dynamic. In an ideal world, once
competition is established the Regulator should become redundant, leaving
behind a competitive and vibrant market. So far in Ireland, there is no sign of
regulatory redundancy – if anything the regulatory agencies seem to be
increasing in size and scope.
When operating effectively regulation has the potential to eliminate existing
monopolies and reduce uncompetitive behaviour. Regulatory agencies
should also be concerned with removing barriers to entry to a market and
increasing levels of competition. This should generate greater value for
customers and encourage informed decisions by consumers on the options
available within that sector. The gain to the national economy from an
effective and focused regulatory market can be seen from an attraction of
investment and a general enhancement of Ireland’s reputation as a country
to do business in worldwide. Regulation also has a role in increasing and
encouraging greater accountability in sectors where consumers have limited
competitive choice.
3. THE COST OF REGULATION
The levels of regulation in Ireland and in Europe far exceed those of
America or the Far East, which in an increasingly global economy can
present major problems for national competitiveness. This can contribute to
a huge difference in the costs associated with conducting business here
than in other parts of the world.
The cost of regulation can also be measured in the efficiency of the
regulatory structures in a particular country. For example, it takes an
average of four days to set up a new business in the US, compared to 38
days in Europe. In terms of actual monetary significance, it costs
approximately 1% of gross national income in the US to start a business,
compared with 12.2% in Europe.1 Establishing a regulatory structure can
never be an end in itself and the operation of the regulatory structure must
constantly be assessed to ensure that it is focused, effective and targeted.
The cost of regulation must also be assessed to ensure that it is delivering
benefits that outweigh any regulatory burdens being imposed.
In some EU countries, this process is developing at a pace. In the
Netherlands2, the newly elected Dutch government decided in 2003 to
reduce regulation by a quarter by the end of its term in 2007. The Dutch
Bureau for Policy Analysis (CPB) was commissioned to research the macroeconomic effects of reducing this administrative burden. They estimate that
approximately 40% of legislation affecting the Netherlands stems from the
EU. According to the CPB, by reducing red tape by 25%, Dutch GDP will
grow by 1.5% and labour productivity will increase by 1.7%. The Ministries
of Finance and Economic Affairs are charged with coordinating a national
approach on behalf of the Dutch government, and a package of 130
measures were identified late last year and sent to Parliament. This
1
2
Statement by Maurice Pratt, President of IBEC, 19/04/04
www.comliancecosts.com
package has since been expanded and agreed upon and is now estimated
to have the potential to reduce administrative burdens by €4billion.
In Ireland, it is estimated by the Department of An Taoiseach that the cost to
business of compliance with existing legislation is approximately €4 billion
per annum. According to the Government White Paper on Regulation 15%
of this burden is avoidable. That means that each year, unnecessary
regulation costs €600 million to business here. It is important to note that
not only does this cost impact negatively on the economy and consumers in
monetary terms, it also prevents businesses from expanding or generating
new jobs each year.
In addition to monetary costs, there are also indirect impacts on business
and consumers from an ineffective or unfocused regulatory regime. For
example a failure of proper regulation could delay the effective opening of a
market to competition, or deter new entrants from locating in Ireland. These
indirect impacts are harder to detect, but have a far greater negative impact
for the economy as a whole.
4. THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF REGULATION
Criticism of regulatory authorities in Ireland has been levelled on the basis of
5 main headings:
4.1 Over-regulation
A number of business groups have expressed widespread concern that
Ireland is rapidly becoming over-regulated, to the point that some claim it
is becoming difficult to conduct business here while maintaining a
competitive edge. In addition, the appointment of a regulator or the
introduction of new regulations is becoming an almost automatic
response to many public policy issues, without pausing to consider other
alternatives. Many groups, including the Enterprise Strategy Group have
voiced the concern that as we adopt more extensive and complex
regulatory structures, our capacity to remain competitive dwindles and
we move down the scale of competitive globalised countries in the world.
Notwithstanding the fact that Europe is subjected to far greater levels of
regulation than the United States, some business representatives in the
US have recently expressed their dissatisfaction with the extent of
bureaucracy and red tape there.
4.2 Lack of Accountability
Many business and consumer representatives in Ireland have called for
a Commission to oversee the work of the various regulators that have
been set up in Ireland over the past number of years. There have been
suggestions of a ‘ National Commission of Regulators’, which would
consolidate all of the existing Regulators into one body, which would coordinate the Regulators’ activities and review each individual Regulator
on a systematic basis.
It has been suggested that by introducing such a Commission, there
would be greater accountability amongst Regulators, reduced levels of
operating costs and more consistent decision-making in general.
Increasing accountability of the Regulatory Authorities to the Oireachtas
is also of critical importance. The relationship between IFSRA and the
Oireachtas Committee on Finance presents a model for the political
accountability of regulatory authorities. It is important that the veil is lifted
off the regulatory bodies and that their activities are seen as transparent,
open and accountable – regular interaction between the Committees and
the Oireachtas can play a key role in this regard.
4.3 Poor Quality Regulation
There are instances where, even though regulation may be the preferred
way forward of dealing with a market problem, it is poorly developed and
so does not work effectively. There are also instances where there is
duplication between regulatory agencies or an inconsistency in approach
to dealing with issues of critical importance to the national economy. The
well-publicised lack of co-ordination between the Competition Authority
and some of the sectoral regulators in the early parts of this decade
perhaps illustrated this best. The conclusion of co-operation agreements
between the agencies has improved the situation, but there is still a
sense that the economy would benefit from greater co-ordination from
regulatory agencies.
There are also a number of pieces of legislation that enforce regulations
that are poorly constructed, according to business representatives. The
Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Act 2003 is a particular source of
frustration for businesses. It introduces a range of compliance
requirements on business that some claim acts as a disincentive for
individuals looking to take on the role of non-executive directors within a
company. Encouraging enterprise, innovation and responsibility can be
mutually compatible objectives and achieved without strangling initiative
and vision.
4.4 Costs of Compliance
Presently, small companies with a turnover of €317,000 are required to
carry out an annual audit at a cost of several thousand euros. This
threshold is due to be increased to €1.5 million but has not yet come into
effect. However, even when this new threshold has been introduced, it
will be considerably lower than many other EU countries. For example, in
the UK, the threshold is £5.6 million sterling.
After labour, energy and insurance costs, many businesses cite
compliance costs as an area of major concern to business. Compliance
costs rise significantly each year, putting huge strain on big and small
businesses alike. For example, the cost of Professional Services
incurred by companies increased by 37.2% between 2001 and 2003,
while overall business costs increased by 29% over the same period.
4.5 Regulatory Capture
Where a ‘natural monopoly’ exists, a Regulator is often necessary.
However, quite often, the Regulator is at the mercy of the regulated in
terms of accessing information and figures relating to the business and
the Regulator can become ‘captured’ by the regulated firm. Regulatory
capture results in the regulator protecting the interests of the regulated
firm instead of promoting and furthering competition. The regulated firm
sets the agenda for regulation and the Regulator does not have the
information available to him to change the situation.
This kind of situation has arisen in other countries in relation to industries
such as gas and electricity. In many cases, it was decided that the
transmission and distribution networks could be deemed natural
monopolies, while competition was possible in every other area.
However, this has sometimes resulted in the natural monopolist
impeding other companies’ access to transmission and distribution
networks, and as a result, the ownership of the networks have been
transferred to separate independent companies.
This is not the case in Ireland where Bord Gáis Éireann (BGE) remains
vertically integrated and where Eirgrid have been allowed access to
operate the national electricity grid but the grid is still owned by the ESB.
4.6 Sectoral Problems
Regulation can also pose greater problems for a number of specific
sectors, such as:

Hospitality & Food
The hospitality and food industry is affected by waste management
regulation,
health
and
safety
regulation,
labour
regulation,
environmental regulations, food regulations and so on. For example,
EU regulations3 relating to food hygiene are extremely complex and
detailed. EU legislation relating to food hygiene is currently scattered
over 17 complex EU Directives. In April 2004, the EU adopted a
‘hygiene package’, which aims to simplify and merge the detailed
Directives. It is expected this law will be applicable by January 2006.
However, having to constantly adapt and adhere to such an array of
regulations is time-consuming, costly and difficult. It makes it an
imperative that any regulatory burden that is imposed on a business
must be proportionate and only imposed for as long as is necessary.

Energy
The energy sector also poses a number of problems in terms of
regulation. By its very nature, the energy sector is complex,
financially, economically and technically. Wholesale prices in the
3
www.fsai.ie
energy sector change rapidly, as fast as every five minutes in areas
of the world such as Australia. Other energy prices change hourly,
others annually. Therefore financial and risk assessment is vital.
Safety and security of supply have also to be taken into consideration
by the regulator, as do environmental considerations. These factors
combined make it difficult for regulators to ensure a long-term supply
for
consumers,
of
high
quality,
while
also
maintaining
competitiveness at all times. However it is important that the
complexity of the industry in which a regulator operates does not blur
constant focus on the important priorities that should govern
regulation – competition, reliability and efficiency.
5. EUROPEAN UNION
The Lisbon Agenda was announced in March 2000 as the European Union’s
core means of enhancing competition. A key aspect to this Agenda is
achieving effective better regulation.
A report issued by the High Level Group on the EU Lisbon Strategy (Kok
Report) at the end of 2004 indicated that the quality of regulation and the
extent of existing red tape is preventing the Lisbon Agenda from moving
forward and is impeding the growth of competition throughout the Union.
The Report recommended that in order to improve regulation, costs on
business and red tape should be reduced. It also recommends that the
quality of regulation should be monitored by carrying out proper and
thorough regulatory impact assessments on proposed legislation. The report
also recommends that the cost of starting up a business in the EU must be
‘drastically reduced’ and a community patent should be adopted to help
improve the regulatory environment.
6. IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS
Small businesses bear a disproportionate burden from excessive regulation.
Increasingly, levels of bureaucracy and regulatory requirements are
resulting in a number of difficulties for smaller enterprises. This
‘strangulation by regulation’ has been highlighted by ISME, the independent
business organisation frequently.
Clearly, the main impact regulation has on small business is cost. It is
estimated that red tape can add the equivalent of 4% of turnover in costs4 to
a small business. Small businesses can often be subjected to thousands of
euro in regulatory costs, which can have negative consequences for the
business. Not only can excessive regulation costs impede a small business’
ability to expand, it can also prevent a business from developing new ideas
and adapting to changing economic circumstances.
One of the main regulatory burdens, which affects smaller businesses, is the
process required for compliance with employment laws. Employment issues
are currently regulated by 25 Acts and 8 separate bodies. According to
IBEC there have been almost 50 new pieces of labour legislation introduced
during the last five years. As smaller businesses tend by nature to be labour
intensive and involve a greater hands on commitment from the owner
managers, they are hit hardest by the need to be continually playing catch
up with new employment legislation. This can act as a deterrent for new
businesses hoping to enter the market or for existing businesses
contemplating expansion.
Small businesses also complain that as they spend such a great deal of
time and energy complying with regulatory demands, they are unable to
spend as much time as necessary on product and business development
and sales which would allow their business to grow and prosper.
4
ISME Press Release, 02/01/05
SME’s have also been highly critical of the regulation of the financial sector,
saying banks have imposed an excessive level of hidden charges on small
businesses who are regarded as an ‘easy touch’. There seems to be a
perception from some small business groups that the high costs for banks of
regulatory compliance has been passed onto customers, rather than taken
from the bottom line.
7. EXEMPTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
Small business representatives have repeatedly called for exemptions for
SME’s from some aspects of labour regulations and other perceived
regulatory burdens. They believe an amalgamation of the 8 employment
bodies and the consolidation of 25 Employment Acts and 11 Companies
Acts would lessen the burden on SME’s and permit them to grow and
expand their businesses instead of spending excess time on completing
forms and concentrating on complex rules and regulations. ISME estimate
that small business owners have to be aware of and implement almost
1,0005 different major legislative issues in order to comply fully with various
aspects of regulation, in areas such as taxation, industrial relations, auditing,
environmental issues and health and safety.
The question of granting an exemption from any aspect of regulation for a
particular class of enterprise raises challenges. Clearly no employee of a
small or medium sized company should be at a disadvantage in terms of
regulatory protection by virtue of working for a small company. Similarly no
customer of an SME should suffer any disadvantage. There is a balance of
interests to be secured, but there must be an imperative, in the context of
creating and sustaining enterprise, to ensure that the regulatory obligations
facing a well resourced and staffed multinational are not identical to those
facing a smaller owner operated family business.
5
ISME, 02/01/05
8. BETTER REGULATION
There are signs that addressing the regulatory burden on business and
enterprise is receiving sufficient political priority. For example, the
Government’s White Paper on Better Regulation was published in January
2004 and identified the need for a more focused and strategic approach to
be taken to regulation in future. Central to this is the need to ensure that
Regulation conforms to key principles including necessity, effectiveness,
proportionality,
transparency,
accountability
and
consistency.
The
Government has made it clear that all new legislation will be assessed by
reference to new Regulatory Impact Analysis to determine the likely impact
on the economy and society. As a priority, the Government has announced
its intention to amend the –1922 legislation, through a process of Statute
Law Revision.
While this is a welcome development, it does little to address the concerns
of business that there has been a legacy of burdensome and unnecessary
regulation in recent years. If a programme of Better Regulation is to have
any meaning for business, it must focus on the legislative changes which
have been introduced in recent years and not start back with pre 1922
statutes. There is an imperative for modern businesses to have an effective
and efficient modern regulatory system. Devoting State resources at the
outset to target statures enacted before Independence, does little to ensure
businesses that the State is serious about regulatory reform.
As a priority, Government should consider a number of measures:
1. An independent review should be carried out of the effectiveness and
operations of all the regulatory agencies set up since the 1990s, to
determine their performance in the context of the 6 key principles
outlined as part of the Governments White Paper on Regulation.
This review should not contain representatives of the regulatory
bodies, but be based on a broad composition of the stakeholders’
ostensibly benefiting from the new regulatory regime. In particular,
the review should consider the need for a multitude of regulatory
authorities in such a small economy as Ireland.
2. A process of identifying the operation and impact of recent regulatory
legislation on businesses and consumers must be undertaken as part
of this review. The review should also examine the extent to which
the regulatory agencies observe the 6 key principles of Better
Regulation in their consultative and decision making processes.
Businesses and representative groupings should be requested to
outline their experiences of complying with regulations, to see how
any burden can be reduced, without diluting the public policy
objectives underpinning the appointment of the regulatory agency in
the first place.
3. This review group should report to the Committee on Enterprise and
Small Business and carry out its functions over a 4-month period.
Any requirements for legislative amendments identified as a
consequence of the review should be fast tracked through the
legislative process.
4. All of the regulatory authorities should be issued with guidance from
Government on the key principles that they should respect and seek
to achieve in both their consultative, investigative and decision
making processes. In particular the regulatory agencies should be
compelled to follow a code of practice on the manner in which they
regulate and should ensure that they comply with the 6 tenets of
Better Regulation laid down in the Better Regulation White Paper.
5. As a group, the regulators should meet, under the auspices of the
National Competitiveness Council, to ensure that their key role in
helping to deliver a vibrant and competitive economy is constantly in
focus.
6. All of the regulatory bodies should be called to account before a
relevant Oireachtas Committee at least once a year on the general
issues relating to their operations. This process of parliamentary
accountability should be encouraged and prior to their appearance,
business and consumer interests should be invited to make
submissions on the operation of regulation in that specific sector.
7. A proactive approach at reducing regulation in the economy should
be carried out. Some consideration should be given to adopting the
same approach as the Dutch and setting specific targets to reduce
regulation in the economy by 25% over a 5-year period. The Dutch
government applied the ‘Standards Costs Model’ to their regulatory
environment, which calculates the time and cost involved for a firm or
individual in complying with a specific law or regulation. This model
has also been effectively used in other countries such as Norway,
Sweden, Denmark and Belgium to calculate the cost of enforcing
VAT regulations. Adopting a similar initiative would deliver tangible
benefits for consumers and businesses that are measurable and
would further assist national competitiveness.
Phil Hogan TD
March 2005
Appendix 1
Employment legislation affecting SME’s
EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
25 Acts
8 Bodies
Labour Court
Rights Commissioner
Conciliation Service of LRC
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)
Equality Tribunal
Employment Rights Enforcement unit
Equality Authority
National Implementation Body
COMPANIES LEGISLATION
11 Acts
53 Orders & Regulations
Business names
Partnership
111 Forms
HEALTH & SAFETY
15 Acts
109 Regulations
incl. 21 EU Acts
10 Regulations
5 Acts/regulations
Appendix 2
Orders of Reference
Dáil Éireann on 16 October 2002 ordered:
1)(a) That a Select Committee, which shall be called the Select Committee
on Enterprise and Small Business, consisting of 11 Members of Dáil Éireann
(of whom four shall constitute a quorum), be appointed to consider (i) such Bills the statute law in respect of which is dealt with
by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment;
(ii) such Estimates for Public Services within the aegis of the
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and
(iii) such proposals contained in any motion, including any
motion within the meaning of Standing Order 157 concerning
the approval by the Dáil of international agreements
involving a charge on public funds, as shall be referred to it
by Dáil Éireann from time to time.
(b) For the purpose of its consideration of Bills and proposals under
paragraphs (1)(a)(i) and (iii), the Select Committee shall have the powers
defined in Standing Order 81(1), (2) and (3)
(c) For the avoidance of doubt, by virtue of his or her ex officio membership
of the Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order 90(1), the
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment (or a Minister or Minister of
State nominated in his or her stead) shall be entitled to vote.
(2)(a) The Select Committee shall be joined with a Select Committee to be
appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Enterprise and
Small Business to consider (i) such public affairs administered by the Department of
Enterprise, Trade and Employment as it may select,
including, in respect of Government policy, bodies under the
aegis of that Department;
(ii) such matters of policy for which the Minister for
Enterprise, Trade and Employment is officially responsible as
it may select;
(iii) such related policy issues as it may select concerning
bodies which are partly or wholly funded by the State or
which are established or appointed by Members of the
Government or by the Oireachtas;
(iv) such Statutory Instruments made by the Minister for
Enterprise, Trade and Employment and laid before both
Houses of the Oireachtas as it may select;
(v) such proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues
as may be referred to it from time to time, in accordance with
Standing Order 81(4);
(vi) the strategy statement laid before each House of the
Oireachtas by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and
Employment pursuant to section 5(2) of the Public Service
Management Act, 1997, and the Joint Committee shall be so
authorised for the purposes of section 10 of that Act;
(vii) such annual reports or annual reports and accounts,
required by law and laid before both Houses of the
Oireachtas, of bodies specified in paragraphs 2(a)(i) and (iii),
and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and
corporate plans of these bodies, as it may select;
Provided that the Joint Committee shall not, at any time, consider
any matter relating to such a body which is, which has been, or
which is, at that time, proposed to be considered by the Committee
of Public Accounts pursuant to the Orders of Reference of that
Committee and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General
(Amendment) Act, 1993;
Provided further that the Joint Committee shall refrain from
inquiring into in public session, or publishing confidential
information regarding, any such matter if so requested either by the
body concerned or by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and
Employment;
(viii) such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from
time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and shall
report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(b) The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be five, of whom at least one
shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and one a Member of Seanad Éireann.
(c) The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order
81(1) to (9) inclusive.
(3) The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a Member of Dáil
Éireann, shall also be Chairman of the Select Committee.
Seanad Éireann on 17 October 2002 ordered:
(1)(a) That a Select Committee consisting of 4 members of Seanad Éireann
shall be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee of Dáil Éireann to
form the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business to consider(i) such public affairs administered by the Department of Enterprise,
Trade and Employment as it may select, including, in respect of
Government policy, bodies under the aegis of that Department;
(ii) such matters of policy for which the Minister for Enterprise,
Trade and Employment is officially responsible as it may select;
(iii) such related policy issues as it may select concerning bodies
which are partly or wholly funded by the State or which are
established or appointed by Members of the Government or by the
Oireachtas;
(iv) such Statutory Instruments made by the Minister for Enterprise,
Trade and Employment and laid before both Houses of the
Oireachtas as it may select;
(v) such proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues as
may be referred to it from time to time, in accordance with Standing
Order 65(4);
(vi) the strategy statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas
by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment pursuant to
section 5(2) of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, and the
Joint Committee shall be so authorised for the purposes of section 10
of that Act;
(vii) such annual reports or annual reports and accounts, required by
law and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, of bodies
specified in paragraphs 1(a)(i) and (iii), and the overall operational
results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of these bodies, as
it may select,
Provided that the Joint Committee shall not, at any time, consider
any matter relating to such a body which is, which has been, or
which is, at that time, proposed to be considered by the Committee
of Public Accounts pursuant to the Orders of Reference of that
Committee and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General
(Amendment) Act, 1993; Provided further that the Joint Committee
shall refrain from inquiring into in public session, or publishing
confidential information regarding, any such matter if so requested
either by the body concerned or by the Minister for Enterprise Trade
and Employment; and
(viii) such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to
time by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and shall report thereon to
both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(b) The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be five, of whom at least one
shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and one a member of Seanad Éireann.
(c) The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order
65(1) to (9) inclusive.
(2) The Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be a member of Dáil
Éireann.
Appendix 3
Members of the Joint Committee
Deputies
Martin Brady
Pat Breen
Joe Callanan
Donie Cassidy
Tony Dempsey
Phil Hogan
Brendan Howlin
Kathleen Lynch
Paddy McHugh
M. J. Nolan
Ned O’Keeffe
(Fianna Fáil)6 (Vice-Chairperson)
(Fine Gael)7
(Fianna Fáil) (Govt. Convenor)
(Fianna Fáil) (Chairman)
(Fianna Fáil)
(Fine Gael)
(Labour)
(Labour) (Opp. Convenor)
(Independent)
(Fianna Fáil)
(Fianna Fáil)8
Senators
Paul Coghlan
John Hanafin
Terry Leyden
Shane Ross
(Fine Gael)
(Fianna Fáil)
(Fianna Fáil)
(Independent)
Martin Brady T.D. replaced Conor Lenihan T.D. by Order of the Dáil on 16 th November 2004.
Pat Breen T.D. replaced Gerard Murphy T.D. by Order of the Dáil on 20 th October 2004.
8
Ned O’Keeffe T.D. replaced Ollie Wilkinson T.D. by Order of the Dáil on 17th February 2005.
6
7