Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason is to ensure that from a public perspective, someone clearly fits the category of being a layperson if one is talking about a body designed to be independent where there is an architecture with a certain representation from the legal professions and a specific number of laypeople. Under the guise of laypersons, we do not want it to become top-heavy with lawyers and undermine the balance we have tried to provide, so five years provides a period of time in which somebody would be substantially disconnected from their former life and one would have the layperson-lawyer balance. That is why I would be reluctant to reduce the period. It would be an issue of increasing the period if members thought that would be appropriate. One must remember that this is a regulatory body for the two professions and there is a particular balance we are trying to maintain.

In respect of Deputy Collins's first question, a regulatory impact assessment for the Legal Services Regulation Bill will be made available in advance of the resumption of Committee Stage after the summer recess. The issue of the regulatory impact assessment at that time will enable it to take account of the development of the Bill since its initial publication in 2011 and up to this autumn. Work on the Bill will continue over the summer and on the resumption of Committee Stage, I will be tabling a series of important amendments in respect of the remainder of the Bill. We want to factor the regulatory impact assessment oversight into that, which is important. This approach is best to ensure that the regulatory impact assessment is concurrent with the actual progress and contents of the Bill as amended or proposed to be amended rather than simply being out of kilter with its development in being based on the Bill as published. Doing it this way also shows some respect for the very interesting and varied submissions we have received and for what we propose to take on board. I hope approaching the matter in this way will also facilitate members of the committee in our further deliberations on Committee Stage. The alternative would have been to produce an assessment on the Bill as published. We have gone substantially past that point and this is a better way of dealing with this. Work is still being undertaken on amendments that have not been finalised and I want what we do to reflect that so members of the committee will understand not simply where the Bill started but where we hope to take it and the backdrop to some of the amendments that are being proposed. I hope that proves helpful to the committee.

In the context of what we are dealing with today and without going into the generality of it, we are dealing with a variety of issues on which I think there is a united view on the changes to be made. It may not be that the exact changes are specifically agreed. Despite all the controversy generated, I have always been of the view it is very important that there is no doubt about the independence of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority. It was never my intention as Minister to be engaged in its day-to-day work or interfere with it but insofar as people had concerns about that, the amendments with which we are dealing today seemed to be relatively straightforward in their intent to copper-fasten the independence issue without having to produce a regulatory impact assessment prematurely to include that when work is still being done on the later sections of the Bill.