Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)

I have not prepared for this as much as I would have liked because I did not dream that this Bill would be rushed through the Dáil at such speed. It deals with a considerable number of regulations and statutes and must be examined closely on Committee Stage to ensure statutes of value are not repealed. Much history is attached to this Bill. The Minister of State referred to 3,188 Acts and statutes. This should improve the situation by repealing historic structures that have little relevance to today's world. Deputy Stagg referred to agriculture, which is still relevant. It is time this area was tidied up. When new laws are passed, why are older Acts not brought together in a new Bill rather than a Bill that is an amendment to older Acts? This would be neater than removing so many statutes across a wide spectrum.

One welcomes the changes to old laws. The matter of wigs and gowns illustrates this point. The ordinary punter is put off by the importance given to these items. People will sit and speak to a person in ordinary clothes with greater ease than to a person wearing these items even though some younger people appreciate the older structures. Those of us on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body who travel to London appreciate the origin of some of these old laws and their relevance to that structure. However, we are proud to be a modern State with more modern ideas and we are not afraid to get rid of some of the shackles imposed by these earlier Acts.

We are rushing through this legislation but other important Bills have been ignored by this Government and will not be addressed before the end of this Dáil. I have referred to the Fines Bill several times. It was a simple Bill proposed by Fine Gael to address the stupidity of jailing someone for non-payment of a fine such as a television licence payment. It would be better if the sum was taken from social welfare payments or a salary. Why is this issue not being addressed when it is more urgent than this Bill, which is being rushed in this fashion?

The Minister of State states that the change will "provide a fundamental clarification and simplification of the Statute Book by repealing all statutes enacted before 6 December 1922 with the exception of those statutes that are specifically preserved". I have not fully evaluated this but I hope to do so before this is rushed through Committee Stage. The danger with rushed legislation is that positive measures may be dropped and we do not want that to happen.

A typical example of this is dealing with the Office of Public Works. I received a phone call yesterday about a river. Unless a reference is included in old laws to cleaning a specific river, it cannot be dealt with and this illustrates why it is good to get rid of old laws. Cleaning rivers and canals should be based on need rather than history. A small river beside my home was dealt with under Brehon law by the local council. It was not linked to the water works and it is now nobody's responsibility. Much land is being lost and roads are being damaged because of the lack of drainage and structure. It is vital that we make progress from the archaic system employed in the water works area.

The Minister of State also referred to the need for better regulation, with which I agree. In this Bill we are improving regulation and trying to get rid of some of the archaic systems that existed from 1070 to December 1922. Last week we rushed a Bill through the House giving freedom to Ministers and the civil servants to put through regulations and laws from Brussels that were completely unacceptable. If we are trying to improve the situation we need to re-examine how this House works.

We are at the end of a five year term or almost a ten year term for the coalition in Government. In that time I have tried to speak as much as any other backbencher in the House but the system needs to be changed dramatically if the House is to remain relevant to the person on the street. We come in here for a few days and work by set pieces. We cannot really deal with emergencies as we should, or have proper debate. I have had an opportunity to observe other parliaments and seen that it is possible to have direct and honest debate rather than set pieces and in most cases written scripts read into the record for the sake of the media.

We need to change not just the regulations made before the State was founded but those on how this House operates. For example, in the Adjournment debate if we are lucky enough to be chosen we speak for five minutes and a Minister of State, rarely the relevant Minister, comes in with a prepared script that often has little relevance to the debate that has taken place. That is how the House loses its relevance. This legislation is a step forward although I dislike its being dealt with in such a short period but it is more important to deal with the relevance of this House today, not just to the people who will serve in it after the next election but to the general public.

See this speech in context