Dáil debates

Wednesday, 5 October 2005

Interpretation Bill 2000: From the Seanad

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Tom KittTom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

This is very much a technical Bill. Work is on-going in every parliament on the issue of how we interpret law. It is the kind of legislation that would not excite the public to any great extent. The Law Reform Commission produced a report on this issue and work has been on-going on the legislation for years.

I will clarify the issues surrounding the interpretation of parliamentary debates. The Law Reform Commission produced a report entitled "Statutory Drafting and Interpretation: Plain Language and the Law" in December 2000. The report recommended that in examining an Act, regard should be had to extrinsic aids such as Dáil and Seanad debates. Senator Ryan proposed amendments which would have expressly allowed the courts to use debates of the Houses to assist in interpreting a Statute, but they were not accepted. Senator Ryan raised the matter on Committee Stage in the Seanad, was seconded by Senator Hayes and supported by Senator Quinn. I rejected the proposed amendment, which would have expressly authorised the courts to look at official reports of the debates, but I undertook to raise the matter in the Dáil if I could do so procedurally. Subsequently, I wrote to Senator Ryan and advised him that, having investigated the matter, I found that I could not raise it in this House. However, the grounds for rejecting Senator Ryan's amendment still stand. It is felt that the courts, through case law, should be allowed to develop the principles within which extrinsic aids to interpretation can be used. There is a body of case law developing on this matter, both from within this jurisdiction and from others. To provide for aid on a statutory basis at this stage could result in the debates of this House and of the Seanad being used in a manner unintended.

Chapter 5.09 of the Law Reform Commission states that in the context of using Dáil and Seanad debates:

More objections may be raised to the use of this type of extrinsic aid, than to the other types already discussed. This is principally because of the difficulty involved in distinguishing between the true intention of the legislature and the statements made by the government about that intention.

It should be noted that the courts can have recourse to extrinsic aid in the context of the interpretation of international treaties and most law originating from the European Union. This is necessary in the context of transnational matters for interpretation where other jurisdictions such as the continental European civil systems use extrinsic aids. It is felt that the Irish judiciary should be allowed to develop further the principles it applies to the use of extrinsic aids in respect of purely domestic legislation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.