Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the broad process of the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill which aims to tidy up the Statute Book by removing 219 Acts that have either become obsolete or have fallen from use. It is part of a commitment by the Government to streamline the list of Acts on the Statute Books and to maintain only those Acts which are of use. Better regulation is increasingly being used in EU and OECD countries to describe government efforts to improve the quality and, where necessary, reduce the quantity of regulations. Regulation includes both primary and secondary legislation, as well as subsidiary rules including administrative circulars and red tape. Statute law revision is the process of repealing legislation that has lost any modern relevance. There have been many statute revision Acts since the foundation of the State, the last one in 1983, which have repealed Acts from a 700-year period.

While this is welcome, when will the language of the law be repealed? I recall the Seanad debating the need to simplify and modernise the language used in legal documents and Acts. After years of reading Acts as legislators, one often must read a section some four times before getting the full implications of what it means. Some countries have modernised legal language. While it would be a marathon effort with the legal profession to undertake such an exercise, it would be a very valuable one in ensuring citizens, affected by all laws, understand them.

The process entered into this Act is welcome as Acts not in use or not necessary should not remain in force. Fine Gael supports the principle that Acts not in use should not remain in force. It also supports the rationale behind it of managing the range of existing laws and regulations while improving the quality of current legislation and monitoring the flow of new legislation coming on stream.

It is heartening to see that the Government is finally making an effort to deliver on some of the commitments it made in its programme for Government 1997-2002. If only it would deliver on some of the more important promises it made on health care, justice and not wasting taxpayers' money. It is clear this Bill, originally introduced last year, is far from a priority for the Government. It is a simple Bill that could have come into force almost a year ago with a little more effort from the Government. Instead, it has meandered through the Houses of the Oireachtas with painful torpor and endemic inertia that is symptomatic of this Government's attitude to passing legislation.

This Bill only deals with Acts between the Statute of Winchester 1285 and the Treaties of Washington Act 1922 and does not address the large number of obsolete statutory instruments that remain in Irish law. The Minister of State might let us know what plans he has to deal with the area of statutory instruments. Fine Gael is committed to making laws and statutory instruments that are readily available to the public at large, and sees better regulation not just as buzz words that make us sound good and garner a few lines in the press but as a manner in which Government should seek to operate. It is a process that goes beyond legislation. It should permeate every decision and action of the Government.

This Government claims to be in favour of better regulation but this is not supported by either its actions or its words. For example, the Interpretation Act 2005 started as the Interpretation Bill 2000. It took five years to become law. There never was a more stark example of where this Government's priorities lie. When the Interpretation Bill 2000 was going through the Oireachtas Fine Gael tabled a number of amendments to the effect that there should be updates and explanatory memoranda published with all new legislation, that new statutes should be published on-line within one day of having been passed and that Acts that had not been used for three years should automatically lapse. All of these amendments reflected considered measures that would bring about better regulation but they were roundly rejected by the Government at that time. We even had a fight in the Seanad to have the Act come into force upon its signature by the President, rather than six months later as the Government wished. My colleague, Senator Cummins, made the point that for successive Governments, including this Government, improving Statute Book tables takes a back seat to everything else.

Improving the Statute Book has never been a political aim as it does not garner votes for any party. The task of tidying up the Statute Book does not lend itself to immediately visible results and it is a tedious and expensive task. The level of finance expended is not always fairly reflected in the amount of progress apparent. The high cost of rendering some order to the Statute Book can provide ammunition to those who are cynical about the merits and effects of such efforts.

The statute law revision project which gave rise to and is the basis for this Bill could not have commenced without the support of the Attorney General. It is imperative the process does not fizzle out. A great deal more work must be done if real improvements are to be made to the Statute Book. I welcome this Bill not as an end in itself but as a tool toward improving the Statute Book for the future. I ask the Minister of State to clarify the situation with regard to the Statute Law Restatement Act 2002, which should allow for an official consolidation of Acts to be published. This unofficial consolidation could then be used in the courts without the process of passing through the Oireachtas, but to my knowledge, there is not any example of this legislation being used in the three years or so since its enactment. This is another way in which we could better manage the Statute Book without unduly burdening the Oireachtas with Consolidation Acts.

Will the Minister of State clarify whether he intends to add any further statutes to the Schedule to the Bill other than those he indicated at the end of his speech, given that he increased the number of Acts to be repealed by a staggering 240% from 91 to 218 on Committee Stage in the Seanad? He might let us know if other Acts will come under consideration during the passage of the Bill through Committee and Report Stages in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I oppose the practice that has become a habit, particularly with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, of radically reshaping legislation after Second Stage, because it removes the necessary time to deliberate and consider future legislation and its effects. On this occasion, however, I welcome the fact that the Bill is to be more encompassing than it was when it was first proposed in the Seanad. Nonetheless it begs the question, asked by Senator Brian Hayes on Committee Stage, whether the Minister of State would not be better advised to wait until the Attorney General was satisfied that no other Acts or statutes should be added to the Bill. The Minister of State alluded to work that was ongoing to review statutes pertaining to intoxicating liquor, land and employment rights.

The Minister of State said it would not be long before somebody came back to the House to undertake further work in this area. Since he has made clear his objective is to repeal all pre-1922 legislation so that there will be no need to revise the body of law I ask him to apprise the House of his intentions. Could he tell us in detail what plans he has, if any, to introduce another statute revision Bill and when we might be likely to see any draft of such a Bill?

I welcome the effort to tidy up legislative history. I join the Minister of State in recognising that there is more work to do and that this Bill represents only the beginning of this important process. I look forward to further initiatives in this vein and more work to manage the Statute Book. I commend the Minister of State on drawing our attention to the need to keep Statute Law under review because some old Acts have titles which are offensive, such as "lands of idiots" and "lunatics". The Law Reform Commission recently recommended the removal of phrases such as "idiots", "lunatics" and "those of unsound mind" from legislation. The Minister of State might be aware of my interest in this area.

I look forward to going one step further, though I do not know if it is in the Minister of State's power to do so, by removing those terms from general everyday use. The use of such terms and others like "barmy" and "off the wall" has a profound effect on the 20% of people who suffer from a psychiatric illness and it stigmatises people. They inhibit people from accepting that they have an illness.

The illness may become more profound because it is not accepted or treated. By the time the illness becomes serious, the treatment will not have the same effect that it would if the illness were treated at an earlier stage. It also labels people for life, although this is waning somewhat. Nevertheless people, especially young people, are inhibited from seeking help because they label themselves. Even if these people look for assistance and treatment in private and in confidence, a degree of self-labelling occurs that would stop these people from seeking the help.

I look forward to a time when we can remove some of the terminology that is loosely applied to those who suffer from a psychiatric illness or an emotional difficulty, as it would be helpful in making progress on the issue of psychiatric illness. The Minister of State discussed a removal of such references from Acts. Similarly, some offensive references to African-Americans were very much in use until the 1960s and 1970s but are now unacceptable in the United States. I will leave discussion of the issue of the availability of psychiatric services to another Minister.

See this speech in context