Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

This is a very peculiar way of creating legislation. I was not party to the discussions on Committee Stage but I welcome the fact that the Minister of State has reflected on the Bill since then. There is no difficulty with the repeal of the Genocide Act and its reinstatement in its entirety in a different legislative form if that was intended. It is very unusual that the Minister of State sought to repeal an Act subject to qualifications. One cannot do so. The Minister of State is seeking to repeal the Act but states that the repeal effected by section 7(2) is without prejudice to the obligations of the State under the Act. Are we repealing an Act but retaining our obligations thereunder? The text that sets out these obligations is included in the repealed Act. That is an odd way to make law.

We should repeal the Act, restate it in the form the Minister has captured in the Bill and also restate the Schedule text therein. Where will the text of the Genocide Act be found once it is repealed? The text will be repealed and will no longer have legal validity. The Minister of State must tease this out to my satisfaction. Section 7(2) will now read, subject to the amendment of the Minister of State, that the Genocide Act is repealed. In section 7(3) it is stated that the repealing is without prejudice to the obligations under this repealed Act and that the text is set out in the Act that has been repealed.

Why will the Minister of State not accept the text proposed by my colleague on Committee Stage, which I strongly endorse? The Genocide Act should be repealed in its totality and reinstated in this legislation, with the text reinstated in the Schedule. Anti-genocide legislation would then be encompassed within this provision and readable within a single Bill. This would eliminate the bizarre situation where one is referred for the text to an enactment we are repealing.

Is the Genocide Act and all its provisions reinstated in the Bill? Are any sections not restated in this legislation? If nothing is left out, section 7(3) is puzzling. Amendment No. 14 seeks to set out the Schedule of the Genocide Act in this legislation and amendment No. 69 includes the entire Schedule. This way of doing business is peculiar and has been acknowledged as an odd legislative statement. The Minister of State's amendment seeks to delete the phrase "Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the" but the conditions are maintained. Although the phrase "Subject to subsections (3) and (4)" will be deleted, I presume subsections 3 and 4 will be retained. The Bill is without prejudice to the obligations of the State to an enactment that is repealed, the text of which is no longer valid because it is repealed without being restated. Furthermore, section 7(4) states that notwithstanding section 7(2), proceedings under the 1973 Act may be taken after the commencement of this section, even though the 1973 Act is being repealed. Can the Minister of State explain the thought process that led to this formulation?

See this speech in context