Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I think it is not intended. The substance of the response by the Minister of State is that he is doing so because he was advised to do so. It is a clumsy way of doing this and one which makes matters difficult for people to comprehend. There is an obligation on us to make legislation, particularly that which deals with our international obligations and a statute to which we are party internationally, as clear as possible. We should be able to defend our transposition of it and render it readable. I understand the intention and do not criticise the Minister of State for seeking continuity between the Genocide Act and the broader scope of the Bill. The Minister of State indicated that the Genocide Act is encompassed in its entirety in the Bill but he also stated that, for some reason, it is not possible to have identical legislation. If the earlier Act is being repealed, it could be captured in its entirety as an adjunct to the Bill. My amendment makes the legislation easier to read and is less clumsy than the mechanism suggested by the Minister of State.

If the Genocide Act is repealed, as section 7(2) states, the Schedule to that Act will also be repealed. Is that not a simple fact? Subsection (2) states the Genocide Act 1973 is repealed, including its Schedule. Subsection (3) states the text of the Schedule is still binding on the State. That seems an odd legislative formulation, which I do not feel is good from the perspectives of either plain English or legislation. The formulation I offer is much more robust, sound and simple.

See this speech in context