Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity speak to the Statute Law Revision Bill 2012. When we considered this before, I may have spoken on the legislation at a committee, but we are discussing this under the hat of public expenditure and reform. The Minister wrote to members of the Opposition on 29 May seeking agreement to put this Bill through in one sitting. We agreed to the request and we will do everything to facilitate the smooth and quick passage of the Bill this morning. Although there will not be detailed discussion, I may have a question or two which I hope the Minister of State can answer. If he cannot do so immediately, he might do me the courtesy of sending the reply by letter.

There are 200 pages of Acts to be repealed and retained and I have focused on examples referring not to County Laois but Queen's County, the former name of Laois. I have a few questions relating to the area referred to as Queen's County. Some time ago I pushed for changes in legislation so that land and title documents in both Laois and Offaly would be referred to in the Land Registry as County Laois and County Offaly. When I came to this House, all the title deeds in Laois referred to the Queen's County and that was on the title when I got my mortgage. It could still be on that document. It was the same for Offaly, which was referred to as King's County.

There is nothing anti-British in repealing old British legislation. We are tidying up legislation and I am sure Britain is doing the same. The Bill continues what the Minister of State rightly describes as the cleaning up process in the Statute Book, repealing Acts which no longer have a purpose or relevance in the modern Irish legal system. The Bill addresses local and personal Acts, as well as private Acts; the public would not be aware of such legislation and the Minister of State, in his speech, has explained them. I was surprised to see how many issues concerned divorces, settlements, setting up estates and dowries etc. We only have the titles of the legislation but we can make assumptions about what is behind some of them. Naturalisation Acts would have dealt with people coming from other countries to this area, for example.

The Bill proposes to clarify and simplify the Irish Statute Book by repealing Acts which no longer have a purpose or relevance in the modern Irish legal system. Some 2,983 statutes have been identified as suitable for such repeal. The legislation also provides for a comprehensive list of statutes that will continue to have force after the passing of the Bill, with 796 statutes identified as such and listed in the Schedules. There is amendment of the Adaptation of the Enactments Act 1922 to provide for automatic adaptation of the pre-1801 legislation, with the power to make further changes by order. The Bill deals with local and personal Acts between 1851 and 1922 and private Acts between 1751 and 1922. That is the gist of what we are doing.

The Minister of State has given a comprehensive explanation and I have only one question on it. I will not hold up business if he cannot reply but it is well and good if he can do so. The Minister of State indicated there are a number of reasons it is undesirable for spent or obsolete legislation to remain on the Statute Book and that in simple terms, it is misleading for users who may believe that solely by virtue of an Act remaining on the Statute Book that it retains some modern effect or relevance. What does that mean? The Minister of State has indicated that some Acts remain on the Statute Book and they may have some modern effect or relevance. Will the Minister of State clarify this, and specifically how it relates to the Queen's County?

The Bill is extraordinary, with a Long Title on one page, several sections over the next three pages and 200 pages devoted to the Schedule.

The bread and butter of the Bill is in the Schedules. Schedule 1 lists Acts that are specifically retained, although there are not many of them. The first of them refers to County Tyrone. Why Tyrone? It is not part of our jurisdiction.

As I move down through the other legislation, we can understand why some of it cannot be repealed, such as that relating to Wilson's Hospital in Westmeath - Wilson's Hospital is still there. Reading further, there is a list of Irish Private Acts to be retained and it reads "Vesting certain lands, etc. in the Queen's County formerly the estate of Dudly Alexander Sidney Cosby, late Lord Sidney, deceased, in trustees for raising money sufficient to discharge incumbrances affecting same, and other purposes; and to enable the several persons entitled thereto to make building leases of part thereof", and it is now to be called the Sidney Estate Act. When I see the reference to Cosby, it can only be the Cosby estate, in Stradbally, County Laois, the venue of the Electric Picnic each year. If I said we are dealing with legislation to protect the Electric Picnic site for future years, people would understand why we are not repealing everything. If that Act was repealed, there might be a question about the Electric Picnic. That family is still there, we all know them locally; they are a well respected family with a fine estate used for vintage car and steam rallies as well as the Electric Picnic. It is interesting to see that reference to County Laois. I agree it should not be repealed because that family is still in situ in that estate.

Schedule 2 outlines those Acts that are specifically being repealed. Page 87 of the Bill includes the Act "Enabling John Preston, Esquire, for the considerations therein mentioned, to charge his estates in County Meath, and Queen's County with a further sum for payment of debts", which is obviously to levy rates on the people who lived on the estate. That is one of hundreds of such Acts. Over the page there is a further reference to John Preston and his estates in County Meath and the Queen's County, which we all know as County Laois. These Acts are of value as curiosities because they were enacted in 1773 and 1774 and they are now being repealed. The Act I mentioned relating to the Sidney estate was passed in 1783 and the house is still in fine condition. I would not like to see anything done by repealing that Act that would have implications for the house.

I will not be tabling any amendments on Committee or Reports Stages so maybe we will not be here for too long.

See this speech in context