Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

This Bill marks the completion of important work by the Attorney General and associated staff. I acknowledge the final review of the primary legislation enacted prior to Independence has taken almost a decade to complete, although there is still a lot to do.

As a historian I have a huge interest in delving into each of these Acts to discover why some of the divorce proceedings happened in the way they did and to consider the changes brought about by the railways. I perused the titles and the staff are lucky that on this side of the House we did not ask for copies of each Act because some of it would only be found in Westminster. It could be a job for a historian in the future, or even for the Attorney General and those who took part in the project, to undertake a history of the work behind this Bill and the problems that arose. Here we are in Ireland so many years after the independence of the State and we did not have access to some of the laws that were still in force today. As a republican, I have always been bemused that it has taken successive Governments so long to deal with that legacy, considering it was one of the issues that had been identified very early in the War of Independence and the foundation of the State, that we had to deal with this legacy and either repeal the legislation or restate legislation that still needed to be in effect in the State.

It is a good day and hopefully in future we will deal with some of the other flaws the Minister of State mentioned. He mentioned in his speech there are 2,116 Acts still in force that predate Independence. It would be interesting to look at those Acts at some stage in future to see why we are not repealing them now and examine their impact. We know the effects of the Acts listed in this Bill and previous Acts relating to statute law. We had fun looking at the titles of some of the Acts, their effects and how bizarre some of them were in terms of modern parliamentary procedure and legislation. What took up parliamentary time so long ago? They show the history of the parliamentary system and how practices have changed.

I do not question the enthusiasm of the interns who were used on this project but I have a problem with the use of internships in this fashion. Interns should be used but this whole process hinged on their work because the project had been stalled for a number of years due to the embargo on staff recruitment and cuts to the Attorney General's office. To ensure the project was not stalled for too long, interns were used rather than employing staff and ensuring all work was continuous. The interns are now finished but the project is not yet complete. Hopefully the valuable experience they gained might make them suitable for recruitment by the Attorney General's office in future to finish some of the work outstanding in statute law revision.

The work is to be commended. Work still needs to be done on the Statute Book, particularly its full codification, so it is fully accessible. Businesses, parliamentarians and the public should have quick and easy access to the laws that govern our State. If we look at this legislation, the Acts involved are full of archaic language. Even today, the legislation we publish is not in plain English. If I was to hand a Bill to someone outside the Houses who had no expertise in legislation, he would find it very difficult to understand; it is gobbledygook to most people. In some ways that is deliberate, with the law being used by lawyers, barristers and solicitors to keep the public out and ensure they are the only people able to extrapolate the intent of legislation. The 2,000 Acts that were in place before Independence and all of the legislation passed by the State since then should be restated in simple language.

While the Minister of State has read the Nice treaty, he probably has not read the reader friendly edition which was published by the Dutch MEP Jens-Peter Bonde and which I have recommended to others as an example. EU law is difficult to follow at the best of times, but he collated all of the documentation relating to the treaty. The book provides on one page the explanation of what each section in the treaty means, as well as the deletions and insertions relating to previous treaties and other documents and the explanations on the opposite page, which makes it easier to track the changes. I have suggested something like this would be a better tool for us when dealing with legislation, particularly on the social welfare code. One has to bounce back and forth between the principal Act passed years ago and various amending Acts passed in the meantime and it is difficult to follow the legislative trail when amendments are being made to the code. That is also a project that needs to be considered to make everything easier for us and the public which is taking a greater interest in how Parliament works. That is why there are so many tours every day. People want to learn about how legislation is processed because they are mystified as to why it is so complex, but we have made it complex through the mechanisms we use.

I speak as Gaeilge in the House from time to time and have made demands regarding legislation. One is that Bills should be published at the same time in Irish and English and Members should have the facility to table amendments in both languages. The Gaeltacht Bill was published earlier this week in both languages and I presume that if I table amendments in both languages, they will be accepted, whereas in the past that was not possible. Not all of the legislation passed since the foundation of the State is available as Gaeilge. I wonder how many of the 2,116 Acts are not available in Irish because any of them could be challenged in the courts. The fact that they remain on the Statute Book means they have implications for today's society. I urge the Minister of State to examine this issue. I am not trying to overburden the Attorney General's office, but these projects are vital. I acknowledge that they take years; for example, it took ten years to complete the project that led to this legislation. While they cannot be rushed, once we know work is being done and progress made, most reasonable people will accept this.

I refer to another example of how legislation can be difficult to find. When the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill 2010 was being taken in the House, many said it would address many of the inequalities experienced by some family formations, in particular same sex couples. Towards the end of the debate Marriage Equality demonstrated that the legislation did not address a significant range of rights, responsibilities and obligations that flowed from marriage. Hundreds of these remain to be addressed to ensure equality between various family formations which some people do not want to have addressed. They do not want to recognise that there should be marriage equality, but some of these rights were not captured in the Act because this is a complex legal area. However, they need to be captured to address shortfalls in the legislation. This has arisen because some of the legislation in this area is archaic and not available. I hope we will come back to the issue of marriage equality and that legislation will be introduced. Marriage Equality has highlighted 169 legal points of difference covering rights and protection across a range of legislation, including family law, immigration, housing, court procedures, inheritance taxation, freedom of information and other miscellaneous provisions, that can apply to married heterosexual couples but not to same sex couples registered as civil partners. If we are to examine this issue properly, we need all of the relevant legislation in front of us. This group has done this work and it is an example of how difficult legislation can be. While we cannot rush legislation sometimes, in some cases, we have to wait years for the necessary legislation to address problems. We are happy for some progress to be made, but once it is made, we need to ensure the completion of changes.

I welcome the Bill and, as an Irish republican, the repeal of any British Act of Parliament. It is a pity the Act of Union and similar Acts are not being fully repealed in this legislation, although some other provisions have been in the past. I refer to ground rents. I presume some of the 2,116 Acts still give some rights to landlords who were never in or who are no longer in the State. I would be willing to help in whatever way possible to go through the legislation to put together a Bill to repeal the Acts which force Irish people who own their homes to pay ground rent to somebody they have never seen or heard from other than through a threatening letter from a legal company based in England.

See this speech in context