Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputies for their contributions to the debate. I agree with Deputy Crawford's last point and as Government Chief Whip I have endeavoured to achieve improvements in the way the House operates by consensus, which is the tradition. I did not succeed in many of the areas where I tried to introduce reform. We succeeded with new technology, so that computers are used in the House, there is webcasting, and we held e-consultation which enabled the public consult on-line on legislation, as it is doing in regard to the Broadcasting Bill. The staff in the House has been involved in these improvements.

Major reforms are needed here. I tried to bring forward the Adjournment debates so that Deputies who wish to raise important national, local or constituency issues could do so early in the day, have the relevant Ministers respond and a better public involvement. Many of those debates late at night are not reported in the media.

Leaders' Questions also needs reform and I do not say this to protect my Taoiseach. When compared with other European leaders he comes out well in respect of the time he spends here. Deputy Crawford's leader said one day "As somebody told me on the way into the House" and went on to question the Taoiseach about the topic. The Taoiseach can be asked about anything, from an issue in the Deputy's constituency or mine to radon. He must be an expert in everything. I am not sure that is the right way to do things.

It probably suits the Opposition at the moment but there are better ways to get better information, by having other Ministers, as well as the Taoiseach, here. Some notice could be given of questions on important national issues and the Ministers could be more involved. Regardless of who is in Government, there are changes we should make. Let us try to do so when the new Government is formed, whoever forms it. Obviously, I hope it will be our side and the Deputy hopes it will be his.

The debate on this Bill is a timely reminder of the ongoing need to update our legislation. I would be happy to provide Deputies with any Acts of interest, and to clarify their concerns between now and Committee Stage. I said this in the Seanad too. There has been significant public consultation throughout 2006 on the Acts. Advertisements were placed in national newspapers, last March and April and in September and October. The list of the Acts has been available at all times on the website of the Office of the Attorney General, www.attorneygeneral.ie. There is a great deal of interest among the public. I am keen to see schools become involved in this because it is fascinating work, not just for us but for people outside the House.

Deputy Kehoe referred to the Howth and Holyhead Harbours Act. This Act vested in commissioners the bridges over the Menai Straits, the River Conway, the harbours of Howth and Holyhead, the roads from Dublin to Howth, and provided for the further improvement of the road from London to Holyhead. The Act has been partially repealed by a series of Acts and the Act may still be relevant to the law of transport and therefore is not suitable for repeal at this stage. The Deputy referred to the abolition of tolls at Portumna Bridge and the provision for its maintenance. The Act that abolished the collection of tolls at Portumna provides that the bridge is to be vested in the counties of Galway and Tipperary, in equal portions, and that the respective grand juries, rough equivalents to county councils, are to provide for its maintenance. The drawbridge and swivel bridge are to be maintained by the commission of public works out of the tolls of the Shannon navigation. Any other Acts for the repair of bridges in Ireland are to apply to Portumna Bridge. The Act may still be relevant to the law regarding the commissioners of public works and is therefore not suitable for repeal at this stage.

Deputy Kehoe referred also to the Roads Act which is an Act to make provision for the collection and application of the excise duties on mechanically propelled vehicles and carriages to amend the Finance Act 1920. The Finance Act 2004 repealed section 6(2) indicating that the residue retains efficacy.

Deputy Stagg referred to the Bill of Rights. He is not here at the moment but he will be interested to know that this Act deals with the rights of subjects and, in particular, makes provision for parliamentary privilege. The Act is not suitable for repeal at this time primarily because it may be relevant to the law regarding parliamentary privilege. Deputy Stagg also referred to the Poisons and Pharmacy Act which regulates the sale of certain poisonous substances and amends the Pharmacy Act. The Act specified that only sections 2 and 5 were to apply to Ireland. Sections 2 and 5 were repealed by the Poisons Act 1961, therefore the residue of the Act, that is, the long title, is suitable for repeal. These are examples of why we are retaining some legislation.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked why there was no mention of the Brehon law in the Bill. The Brehon law was predominantly an oral tradition, rather than statute-based law. The Normans, and later the English, introduced written statute law in Ireland. They suppressed the Brehon law over a long period. Some of the statutes being repealed in this Bill were laws used to suppress the Brehon law, such as the laws of 1210 and 1226 which provided that English laws and customs should be observed in Ireland. By the end of the 17th century, Brehon law had been entirely suppressed and therefore did not survive into the legal system under the constitutions of 1922 and 1937.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked about the erection of the castle at Dublin and the establishment of fairs at Donnybrook, Waterford and Limerick. This is fascinating. This is to be retained. The Act of 1204 had two purposes. First, it commands that the King needs a castle of greatest possible strength with good fosses and strong walls, constructed in a suitable place both to control the city and, if needful, to defend it. The second purpose is to authorise the holding of fairs at Donnybrook, Drogheda, Waterford and Limerick for eight days annually and that merchants may freely attend. This is not suitable for repeal as a High Court action has been initiated by a trader against three local authorities, which may involve the court determining the status of these ancient market rights, despite the fact that Donnybrook fair was suppressed in 1855. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, will be interested in that explanation.

Deputy Boyle asked why we are keeping or repealing Acts. I am happy to provide information on any Act referred to today or on which Deputies would like additional information. I will provide that in advance of Committee Stage. My officials will be happy to help in that regard. Committee Stage will be on 13 March. Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked about the research for the Bill. This legislation follows from the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Act 2005, which I also brought before the House. That Act repealed 206 ancient Acts. As regards further work, the Bill marks a significant step in clarifying what remains to be repealed. The Acts listed for attention will be repealed and work is already under way in that regard.

Restatements are official publications which combine in a single text important legislative measures with all their amending statutes. This means that citizens and practitioners can use a single source for the various statutes, as amended. Restatements of the law greatly improve the transparency and accessibility of the Statute Book.

Deputy Stagg mentioned some of the Acts not applying to Ireland. Any statutes in the Schedules applied to Ireland. Many statutes of the former United Kingdom enacted between 1801 and 1922 never applied to Ireland. There is no reason to repeal these statutes and, as such, they are not included in the Schedules to the Bill. With regard to the question of whether any statutes are missing from the Schedules and what will happen if they are found later, there might be a small number of ancient statutes which have not been discovered in the course of researching the Bill. Such statutes must be regarded as being so obsolete that they cannot have any continuing effect. People cannot be expected to be bound by laws that are so obscure even skilled legal researchers cannot find reference to them. The effect of this Bill will be to repeal all public general statutes except those listed in Schedule 1. Obviously any Act which is lost in history will not be listed in Schedule 1; therefore, this Bill will repeal all such lost statutes.

I thank Deputies for their contribution to this process. If they have particular interests, they should notify my Department between now and Committee Stage. There will be ongoing research in this area and I am anxious to ensure that in holding debates on this detailed Bill there is as much information as possible available to Deputies. I acknowledge the work of the team of officials in the Office of the Attorney General, who have engaged in detailed and considerable research to identify both the statutes for retention and the statutes for repeal. It has been a complex task to identify the Acts that still apply to Ireland and to ascertain whether they are suitable for repeal.

See this speech in context