Vol. 646 No. 4
1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the number of staff, broken down by grade, currently employed in the Attorney General’s office engaged in the drafting of legislation; the number of vacancies in any such grade or position; if he is satisfied that there are sufficient staff and resources available to the Office of the Attorney General to facilitate the prompt and efficient drafting of legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30919/07]
2 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the number of staff employed in the Office of the Attorney General in the drafting of legislation; the comparable number for 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35282/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The position in relation to permanent staffing in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government is set out in a table which I propose to circulate in the Official Report. There are currently 19 permanent staff and four consultant drafters serving in the office. In December 2002, 18 permanent staff and four consultant drafters were employed. Three assistant Parliamentary Counsels, grade II, were promoted following an internal competition to assistant Parliamentary Counsel, grade I, on 14 November 2007.
As a consequence of this and of the Department of Finance sanction of 26 July 2007, five vacancies at assistant Parliamentary Counsel, grade II, level arise. A competition organised on behalf of the office by the Public Appointments Service in respect of those vacancies was held in December 2007. Three of the successful candidates will join the office on 25 February, 3 March and 28 April, respectively. The office intends organising a further competition before the summer to fill the remaining two vacancies.
|
Grade |
Number Serving |
Number of Vacancies |
|
Chief Parliamentary Counsel |
1 |
— |
|
First Parliamentary Counsel |
1 |
— |
|
Parliamentary Counsel |
4 |
— |
|
Assistant Parliamentary Counsel (Grade I) |
7 |
— |
|
Assistant Parliamentary Counsel (Grade II) |
6 |
5 |
|
Total |
19 |
5 |
It is clear from the Taoiseach's reply that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, formerly the Office of the Parliamentary Draftsman of the Office of the Attorney General, is under-staffed.
Is this under-staffing the cause of a contributory factor in the delay in legislation being published? I refer to a number of pieces of legislation which have been in the pipeline for some time, including the Ombudsman (amendment) Bill, originally promised in 2003, the broadcasting Bill, the employment agency regulation Bill, which now appears to be dropped from the immediate publication list, the employment law compliance Bill, the Dublin transport authority Bill and others. Is the delay due to a shortage of staff? Are contract staff employed in the drafting of legislation and, if so, are they from outside the State?
A number of points are raised; if there were a far bigger staff maybe it would ease the burden on the office. It is and always has been a very busy office. As Deputy Gilmore said, its title has changed from the Office of the Parliamentary Draftsman to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. In three of the past four years it received increased posts and an increase in staff but overall numbers have not changed a lot — in my reply I mentioned regrading.
The office's legislation output keeps up with a very high average. If one looks at the capability of the office to produce legislation over a longer period rather than recent months one sees much of the legislation was enacted prior to the election, which cleared up a lot of the Government's legislation programme. Some 109 Bills were enacted in the 29th Dáil and plenty of Bills are before the House. Recently, the office finished very substantial Bills. The Finance Bill, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill, the Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill, the Student Support Bill have all been published and the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill also took a great deal of work, not to mind all the statutory instruments the office workson.
It is an enormously busy office. Last year again it turned out a higher number of Bills than in the previous period and a whole range of Bills are coming through. Often it is a question of Departments organising the data and the work rather than the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel which I find to be efficient and quick in dealing with the issues once they are clear in Departments. Bills such as the Finance Bill, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill and the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill are major Bills and priority has to be given to them. Obviously other Bills will fall back, that is inevitable.
With regard to contract workers, at present there are a small number of staff under contract, I think it is four. Four people left for career breaks or secondments and two of them have returned. It is intended to phase out contract staff over a period of years because sufficient permanent trained parliamentary counsel are in place. The figure will remain at four — this year is a difficult year because one of the contract staff is not available for the year. Two more will finish up their time during the course of this year. The office is trying to engage more from common law jurisdictions. I am told there has been a positive response to a trawl of these jurisdictions and there are two potential drafters. They are working with four at present, with two of those due to go.
The difficulty, as Members know, is the length of time it takes to bring in and train experienced drafters. Most of these contract drafters brought in are people who have retired in common law jurisdictions who come here for a few years. They are and have been hugely important to the system. Obviously, as they are retired people, they stay a number of years and will move on. They are essential to building up the base. The office hopes to be able to get out of this situation. I have seen this develop over a number of years; the number is as low as it has been any time in the past 20 years.
Are particular difficulties being encountered in recruiting parliamentary draftspersons? In his reply the Taoiseach said five vacancies were advertised last July, three of which are about to be taken up in the coming weeks, which is welcome. He also said it is intended to re-advertise for two more positions. While I do not want to stray into us commenting on the qualifications and suitability of applicants, will the Taoiseach indicate why this might be the case?
The Government legislation committee is the body to drive the drafting and preparation of legislation. Who are the members of that committee and how does it function? We are dealing with the consequences in that the flow of legislation from the Government has slowed down significantly since the general election. Either Ministers are not driving the preparation of legislation or there is a problem possibly in the Attorney General's office.
The problem is with suitable staff. In the last Public Appointments Commission interviews for assistant Parliamentary Counsel in December, there were five vacancies. Three candidates will take up office from this. Only three qualified in the previous competition, of which two took up office in mid to late 2006. I am informed this is not unusual. In the last competition across the water, 359 applications were made for the Parliamentary Counsel recruitment scheme but only seven applicants were successful and up to the required standard. We did well to get three suitable candidates in the last round. Each time the problem is getting people of sufficient competence and standing to take it forward.
The committee, chaired by the Government Chief Whip, is responsible for the legislative programme. Senior officials from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General are on the committee and consult all relevant Departments.
Before the general election a large number of Bills were completed and people worked to the end position. Obviously, the programme for Government took up much time in the autumn before much of the legislation was enacted. There are a large number of Bills coming through. In fairness to the Parliamentary Counsel staff, they had to deal with the immigration Bill, which is a very large Bill, the Finance Bill, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. A large number of other Bills are coming through, such as on health and retirement, and they have taken up much time.
When a large Bill is being prepared, it is allocated to one dedicated person in the Parliamentary Counsel office who is then out of the equation as regards other legislation. There are also statutory instruments. While it is a busy office, it is difficult to get the necessary people to do the work. We are fairly well up to full numbers in the office and we will be down to two vacancies in a few weeks' time.
In order to have a better understanding of the actuality of the Office of the Attorney General's role in the drafting of legislation, will the Taoiseach give a percentage of legislation prepared directly by staff employed in the Attorney General's office? What is the proportion or percentage of legislation contracted out? How is that divided up? Is there a pattern there on an annual basis? Do Departments draft their own legislation? Do they also contract out work for drafting? The Taoiseach referred to 19 staff and four consultant drafters in the Attorney General's office. Are consultant drafters employed in each Department?
In relation to the current trickle of legislation reaching the Houses of the Oireachtas, which has been a reality for some considerable time — certainly since the resumption after the summer — what responsibility would the Taoiseach ascribe to the Office of the Attorney General for this delay? Does he accept that it is wholly and absolutely his responsibility and that of his Cabinet colleagues? Can he be more informative and give the House a sense of the role, if any, played by the Attorney General's office in the delay in the presentation of legislation that we have experienced for a considerable number of months?
In answer to the Deputy's first question, some Departments have people with experience and expertise in drafting legislation, which is very helpful in the preparation of Bills, particularly in areas such as social welfare and tax law. In these areas, some Bills appear in the same format every year, so they are not as complex and difficult to draft as, for example, a Finance Bill or the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill to which I referred earlier. There is some expertise in the Departments. However, the Attorney General and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel will always say that even when a Bill is outsourced, it must be returned to them so they can check for consistency and ensure legal certainty. That has always been the case. They are not prepared to sign off legislation that has not been cleared by them to their satisfaction. I am not saying the work done in the Departments is not helpful, but even when the work is done by others the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General must be able to stand over it. If there are challenges, difficulties or problems, it is their responsibility.
Although I stated earlier that 109 Bills were enacted in the last Dáil, the total was actually 209 Bills. Much of the ongoing work of preparation and amendment of Bills during their passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas is done at short notice by the parliamentary draftspeople. Much of the legislation promised for the last session is technical and complicated and will require considerable legal checking. The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill took a large amount of time to prepare.
Quite a lot of legislation is coming in, including two statute law revision Bills which have been dealt with in recent times. Over the past few weeks, we have passed a few Bills each week in Cabinet. Sometimes there are delays within Departments due to debates on policy issues that arise when Bills have been partially drafted or items that must be checked against previous legislation. Some of these prove quite complex. As I mentioned last week, the long-stay residential care Bill regarding the elderly raised legal questions and constitutional issues to do with property rights and these must be teased out. This takes time. It is not that anybody is delaying the process — it is just that the issues must be dealt with before moving on to the next stage.
I posed a question at the outset regarding the percentage of legislation dealt with in-house in the Office of the Attorney General versus that contracted out. If the Taoiseach is not in a position to give us an informed answer, I accept that. If that information is not immediately available we will understand. However, if the Taoiseach could obtain this information and provide it to us, it would give us a sense of the way in which things are working, or not working, as the case may be.
In 1998, the Government established a consultative committee on law reform under the aegis of the Office of the Attorney General. This was to assist the Attorney General in setting a programme of law reform, selecting specific topics for reference to the Law Reform Commission and monitoring the implementation of the commission's recommendations. Is the Taoiseach's Department represented on the consultative committee? Where stands its work at this point?
Very little legislation is contracted out. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform does so because it has the lion's share of Bills every year. That must still be vetted and cleared before approval by the parliamentary counsel. One gains some time but it does not alleviate the workload of the Department. Very few other Departments contract out legislation and most of it is done within the Department. Only a small percentage is involved. I will check the exact figure but it could be different in any one year.
A programme is fixed every few years and the Law Reform Commission works very closely with and consults people in my Department. It reports on that work programme on an annual basis. There are normally six or seven items on priority that it works through. It then sets a new programme at the end of every third year.
In respect of the Taoiseach's initial reply, does he accept that we are dealing with a bottleneck? Does he accept that legislation, having been agreed at Cabinet, then goes for formal drafting and that the difficulty lies in the technical procedure involved in that? Does he accept that part of the paucity of legislation in recent times has been solely due to the fact that the office is very much understaffed? Having regard to the fact that the primary duty of this House is the enactment of legislation after full deliberation, will the Taoiseach encourage the practice of publishing departmental heads of Bills and transmitting them to this House or possibly its committees for deliberation prior to the legislation coming in initial Bill form? That would allow for the input of Members and could give rise to a more efficient processing of legislation?
The former Minister for labour affairs, Eithne Fitzgerald, possibly pioneered the publication of heads of Bills, a practice which was, unfortunately, discontinued by various Governments led by the Taoiseach. Perhaps his office, in conjunction with the Office of the Minister of State at the Department of Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt, will consider that as a reformist measure of some consequence?
It is not correct to say that we stopped that. The heads of two very substantial Bills were put out last year. That helped the Charities Bill, which was one of the largest Bills passed by the House in recent years, and the Broadcasting Bill, which was dealt with by way of a consultation process on the Internet. I am in favour of publishing the heads of Bills and having consultation on them. It is suitable in many areas although it may not be so in others. It is a good way of having consultation and it is usually done when working with the social partners. We do it for the reason that it leads to proper consultation. It was done in respect of a number of Bills last year and it is a good way of doing business.
When legislation leaves the Cabinet, further teasing out of policy issues often takes place. When that legislation is drafted, it must bear reference to any legislation in this area. That can be quite difficult when there is no consolidated Bill because one must examine Bills that go back to God knows when, such as pre-1922 legislation. That happens with many Bills before us, including justice Bills — I think we discussed 1935 legislation last week. The amount of checking of chronological statute tables that must be done is complicated. It might not be so complicated in an area involving a standard Bill where there is regular updating of legislation. Case law is also involved. Much of the legislation is difficult to deal with and, when dealing with large Bills, it holds up the system, as we saw recently with the Finance Bill, the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill and the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. Those three Bills are highly complex legislation and that affects others that are coming through the system. The delay is not always on the Parliamentary Counsel side, it is often because issues have not been completed in Departments.
I suggest another approach to reforming the way we deal with this issue? This House makes laws. It is a Legislature and we seem to have an old-fashioned approach to the initiation and drafting of legislation in that, by and large, 99% of the legislation that goes through this House is initiated by Government. It goes through the Attorney General's office and so on and, as Deputy Flanagan said, it is bottlenecked there. Have we not reached the point where the initiation of legislation might be done here in the House, perhaps in committees, taking legislative proposals from individual Deputies or Private Members' Bills, some of which, in fairness to Government, were accepted on Second Stage subject to refinement later? Would that ensure that we had more and better legislation and a greater involvement of Members of the House in legislation if some Parliamentary Counsel were attached to the Office of the Houses of the Oireachtas instead of to the Office of the Attorney General and were available to committees, individual Members or whatever to prepare legislation which could be put on the floor of the House? Many legislative initiatives could be taken by individual Members of the House from whatever side or by committees that would not necessarily be politically controversial but would ensure a greater output of legislation from the House and a more productive involvement by Members of the House?
The number of Bills introduced in the past two years was 42 and 38. That is a high number as against many other parliaments — I have seen that chart. It is not the case that the workload or throughput here was not high in the last Dáil. There were over 208 Bills, approximately 40 a year — that is the average — so we are covering a large amount of legislation.
Private Members' Bills, when they are focused on and confined to a certain area, can be very helpful. In the case of a large Bill the Parliamentary Counsel will find an enormous number of inconsistencies because the drafters cannot have available the chronological tables and database that the Attorney General's office and the Parliamentary Counsel has to check and cross-check. The green copy tends to have a huge number of inconsistencies. I understand that and it is not to say people are not trying their best. Even when Departments are trying to prepare Bills or in the case of an outside contract, if the legislation was to go through in that form it would be extremely faulty. I have heard probably ten Attorneys General give that advice over the years so we must be cautious about that.
Other parliaments try to have more discussion when Private Members' Bills are brought forward by members. That is not bad but if the concept or some of the work is useful they have to go back to be proofed. I have not seen a Bill produced that could go right through the system, except in the case of a very short Bill on a moot point. There is usually a lot of work involved in any substantive legislation, even from outside draftsmen or departmental Parliamentary Counsel. The Parliamentary Counsel have that specialist knowledge and perhaps they would always say that, but it has been the case that they have to proof it.
3 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Taoiseach the methodology used to carry out regulatory impact assessments; if he is satisfied that this methodology properly assesses regulatory costs; if he has plans to reform the RIA process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31336/07]
4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34144/07]
5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the OECD regulatory reform report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35286/07]
6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3549/08]
7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the progress to date with regard to implementation of the OECD report on regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36123/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.
Since the OECD report, Regulatory Reform in Ireland, was published, significant progress has been made in the area of regulatory reform. The Government White Paper, Regulating Better, published in January 2004 in response to the OECD's report, provides the basis for work on the better regulation agenda. Some of the key areas outlined in the OECD report and the White Paper relate to specific sectoral issues and the appropriate Ministers for those sectoral areas are responsible for reporting directly to the House on progressing those recommendations.
A dedicated unit within the public service modernisation division of my Department is tasked with promoting the better regulation agenda generally. In the context of the work of that better regulation unit, I will briefly outline for the House progress in the three areas of regulatory impact analysis, modernisation of the Statute Book and improving the regulatory environment for business.
Since 21 June 2005, regulatory impact analysis, RIA, must be applied to all proposals for primary legislation, significant statutory instruments, draft EU directives and significant EU regulations. RIA is a tool which is used to assess the likely effects of a proposed new regulation or regulatory change. It involves a detailed analysis to ascertain whether the regulation would have the desired impact. It helps to identify any possible side effects or hidden costs associated with regulation and to quantify the likely costs of compliance on the individual citizen or business. It also helps to clarify the costs of enforcement for the State.
To ensure that RIA is proportionate and does not become overly burdensome, the RIA model involves a two-phase approach. Regulations with a relatively low impact are subject to a screening RIA, a preliminary, less detailed analysis. A full RIA involving more extensive and detailed evaluation is applied to more significant regulations.
An independent review of the operation of RIA commenced on 31 October 2007 in line with the terms of Towards 2016. The review will assess the effectiveness of the current RIA model, having regard, in particular, to the principle of proportionality and current international best practice. RIA outputs from Departments and offices will be assessed on a quantitative and qualitative basis, having regard to the requirements of the RIA model itself. The review will also examine the effectiveness of current supports available to officials involved in preparing RIAs and recommend how best to support the RIA process into the future. At the end of the review, recommendations will be made for any necessary changes to the model itself or to its operation. It is expected that the report on the review will be finalised shortly.
The better regulation unit of my Department has, together with the Office of the Attorney General, steered and focused work in the area of modernisation of the Statute Book. The current phase of the statute law revision project, focusing on local, personal and private Acts, will see the completion of analysis of all pre-1922 primary legislation and the availability of a complete list of such legislation that remains in force. The statute law revision project is helping to clear away thousands of redundant and obsolete Acts so that we can see what needs to be repealed and re-enacted in modern, consolidated form. In this regard, good progress is already being made in areas such as land law and conveyancing, company law and financial services.
In addition, the Law Reform Commission is undertaking a programme of statute law restatement which will make legislation more accessible by providing, in the case of selected Acts, a single, up-to-date text, including all amendments. This process of restatement will also facilitate future consolidation and modernisation of legislation.
The programme for Government includes a commitment to instigate a review of the economic regulatory environment, which fits well with elements of the action programme for better regulation contained in the White Paper. An interdepartmental group, chaired by my Department, has been tasked with advancing work in this area.
An independent benchmarking review is being commissioned to address the need for stronger international data and benchmarks in order to assess the comparative efficiency and effectiveness of key Irish economic regulators. The review is expected to make recommendations on improving regulatory structures in Ireland, drawing on international models of regulation. The tender process for this review was initiated on 12 December in the Official Journal of the European Union and on the e-tenders website. In line with the relevant guidelines, the closing date for the receipt of tenders was 8 February and tenders are currently being assessed. It is anticipated that the review will commence at the end of March and last approximately six to nine months.
The interdepartmental group is also currently examining a range of measures to enhance accountability and the transparency of regulators' operations and, arising from its recommendations, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs was recently established. The committee's terms of reference focus on the operational efficiency of regulators in key economic sectors such as energy, communications, transport, health and safety and financial services. The committee has already been briefed by officials of my Department on the review of the economic regulatory environment and has also met with the Health and Safety Authority and the Commission for Communications Regulation in pursuance of its terms of reference.
One would nearly want a legal team to absorb all that, whoever laboured long and hard over it.
The report from the Taoiseach's Department on the introduction of regulatory impact analysis or RIA, as it is called, states that a so-called screening RIA should apply to all primary legislation which proposes changes to the regulatory framework. Did the Government consider, for example, an RIA in respect of the social welfare Bill which is to regulate pension fund administrators? I do not say whether I agree or disagree with it, but did the Government consider an RIA in that case because it introduces a change in the regulatory framework?
The same report stated that a full-scale regulatory impact assessment involving a qualified cost-benefit analysis would have to be produced and published in a case where there was significant Exchequer expenditure and that the Department of the Taoiseach would be the monitoring Department for that, and for all other Departments, to ensure that this was done to an adequate standard. Why was a full RIA not published in the case of the Carbon Fund Act 2007, which involved expenditure of €207 million on carbon credits, in view of the fact that it related to significant Exchequer expenditure? Why did the Department consider it sufficient to say in that case in costing other options to meet Kyoto commitments, which are a big issue with the Government, such as domestic emissions cuts, that these were impossible to calculate? Why, therefore, was a full RIA not requested and published in that case of significant Exchequer expenditure?
As I stated, regulatory impact analysis must be applied for all proposals for primary legislation. They cannot go through the system unless an RIA is carried out on them. This does not just include primary legislation; it also includes statutory instruments, European Union directives and significant European Union regulations. All of the proposals must automatically go through that system.
So the pension fund regulation would have gone through this process?
It must have gone through the process. Whether a proposal relates to primary legislation, statutory instruments, European Union regulations or European Union directives, they must all go through the process. It is done in two ways so that it does not become just a costly and burdensome process. This was one of the issues that Departments but especially business felt strongly about. The model involves a two-phase approach. Regulations that have a low impact, that will not significantly change anything, go through a screening process. I cannot tell Deputy Kenny which process the Bill went through. Bills go through the screening process for a preliminary less detailed analysis if it is considered that it is good enough. If there is a full RIA, then a Bill must go through what is a very extensive and very detailed analysis.
To date, in excess of 200 full RIAs have been carried out since the process began. Practically everything has gone through it. In the review process that is currently under way, they are looking at three years of work to see what else they should do, whether the process is too cumbersome and if there are issues on which they should pick up. It is not just a question of doing as we did in the past, namely, to legislate or regulate and build more bureaucracy on top of that which existed rather than finding a simplified way of doing something. The whole value of regulatory impact analysis is that it is thought out in advance in terms of whether it is necessary to have more regulation, statutory instruments or more confined legislation, or whether there is a better, cheaper or more constructive way of doing something. That assessment takes place before we go through it. It is not done by Departments only. There are outside groups in committees, which are made up of business people and others involved who have an interest in the regulation, where they can make their input. I would say the review will come up with suggestions because there was an agreement in Towards 2016 that it would be done for three years and then there would be an assessment. We are just at the end of the three-year programme. As I understand it, every single proposal must go through this initial period.
I should mention that one of the difficulties in year one was that we did not have enough trained staff across the Departments to do this work. It had never been done before as we would just legislate. A training programme has been going on for the past year or two and more than 240 officials across Departments have undergone these RIA training sessions which give staff the expertise. There is an argument in some areas that perhaps within the system we do not have enough highly qualified people and that is an issue that is being looked at in the review.
I asked the Taoiseach was there an RIA considered for the social welfare fund regulators and why was it not published. That is a change in the legislative framework. Second, was a full RIA published in the case of the Carbon Fund Act 2007, involving significant expenditure of €207 million? The Taoiseach also stated that these were to be published on websites. Of the 200 RIAs he mentioned, how many are up on websites for public scrutiny?
In 2001, the OECD issued a report which stated clearly that the Government should make far greater efforts to reduce red tape and administrative burdens on the regulatory framework involving business, which was being strangled. Four years later the Government set up the Business Regulation Forum chaired by Donal de Buitléir and arising from that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, stated that a red tape reduction target would be set within two months. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, admitted recently that this target had not been kept but that another review group was set up.
Given that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, who seems to be around the country collecting patio heaters, is now sending county council workers in to assess farmers for various activities, can we not get clarity from Government on the real drive here to have a target for reduction of red tape and administrative burdens, which are strangling small businesses and the self-employed all over the country? There were some welcome changes in the Finance Bill, but the target announced by the Minister, Deputy Martin, was never decided upon and the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, stated that target, whatever it was, cannot be met and there is now another review group. We are in a very difficult situation where we are clearly losing out on competitiveness and Government can have an impact on this by reducing red tape and administrative burden.
Will Government state its target for reduction of red tape, by 2% per year or whatever, and give the dates by which that will be achieved, and let those who want to operate within the system and drive their businesses do so?
On the last occasion when we dealt with this issue of regulation in October, I asked the Taoiseach about the Government's plans for regulating the legal professions and in reply he told me that there would be a legal services ombudsman, as provided for in the Civil Law (Miscellaneous) Bill 2006 that was then before the House. Since then that provision for a legal services ombudsman was dropped from the Civil Law (Miscellaneous) Bill 2006 by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I understand that it is intended to be introduced as separate legislation. Given that since October we have seen a parade of solicitors before the Law Society and, indeed, the courts for various forms of alleged misdemeanour and mishandling of clients' money and business, and given the statement made by the Law Society to the effect that it would now welcome State regulation of the profession of solicitors, which is a significant change in its position on that matter, does the Government intend to introduce legislation to regulate the two legal professions? When will the Bill to provide for the legal services ombudsman be presented to the House?
On the first point, the preliminary results from the review of the operation of the RIA process seem to indicate that in the region of 70 assessments have been produced since its introduction. Some 70 full RIAs have been produced across Departments and offices, although I do not know if they have been produced on the websites. Also, they have looked at areas from the preliminary results of the review to bring about considerable improvements.
With regard to the red tape initiative, a number of areas come under my jurisdiction, including the Statute Book, the consolidation of Acts, the simplification of statutes and the chronological tables. These initiatives are well advanced, but it will probably take another year or two to get them entirely up to date. The advances made have significantly assisted business, but there are many other areas to be dealt with, for example, taxation on which the Tánaiste introduced a number of initiatives this year and last year to simplify matters.
Work remains to be done also to simplify the area of enterprise, trade and employment and company law. I am not sure where the next company law Bill, which is a very large Bill, stands. A huge range of issues must be simplified in that area for business. A significant amount of work has been done, but the remaining parts must be legislated for. Company law legislation will be essential.
In response to Deputy Gilmore's question, as I understand it, because of all that goes on, the Minister wanted to review the entire area. He believes it is appropriate to do this in a single legislative Act, rather than just in a section in the Bill as the Deputy suggested. It will take some months before that review is complete, therefore, I do not expect to see the Bill this side of the summer.
What about solicitors and the regulation of the professions?
The Bill to deal with the legal services ombudsman will be introduced this session, but the Minister has not come to final conclusions on the issue of the professions.
Will that Bill come before the House?
It must do so.
