Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

I thank all 14 colleagues who contributed to the debate. I also thank them for outlining their considered views on this important legislation. It is not every day that the Oireachtas effectively makes redundant approximately 23,000 individual items of law which date back to a previous age. Historically, this is an important day for the House.

I take the point made by Deputy Alex White to the effect that this is a decision for the Parliament. Each Act passed by this and the Upper House is an instrument in respect of which all Members must make a determination. I confirm for the Deputy and others that the entire process relating to statute law revision is based on judging what is and is not relevant and what is and is not obsolete. It is not based on whether an Act was passed prior to independence. As the Deputy correctly stated, various items of legislation still have meaning and retain their applicability. This is not, therefore, a cultural legacy difficulty with which we are dealing, rather it is an exercise in assigning applicability to law and ensuring it has relevance.

There is no doubt that some of the legislation involved must remain in place. Of the 60,000 or so Acts passed prior to independence, some 2,116 are being retained because they have applicability, meaning and relevance. It would be utterly wrong to infer that all laws passed before independence are illegitimate, incorrect or wrong merely on foot of the fact that they were enacted under the British regime. It would be a travesty to make such an inference. Many of these laws were right, had applicability and were relevant to the periods in which they were introduced. In so far as they have meaning today, a number of the laws to which I refer are being retained. Their retention is largely down to the team that has been working on this matter since 2003.

It is important to state the parliamentary tradition has a long history in this country, be it on the British side or, since 1922, on the Irish side. Ireland is the fourth oldest parliamentary democracy in Europe and, thankfully, did not go the way of embracing fascism in the 1930s and 1940s. One of the reasons for it remaining a democracy during the latter period is the parliamentary tradition. That tradition continued even after independence and it is extremely important. Many of the procedures in place before the country became independent have been retained. Many such procedures which were copied from Westminster continue to be applicable in this House. This is a result of their durability and strength and also due to the way in which parliamentary values have been inculcated into wider Irish society. We do not need to throw out all of this because much of it is both good and important.

The process in which we are involved has been ongoing since 2003. The Bill is the fourth item of legislation of its kind and has been worked on for the past 18 months. As I pointed out when introducing it, we are going to proceed with the next phase of our review in order that we might modernise the law. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh has correctly pointed out that in the context of the legislation we pass, we must be mindful of the language we use and its applicability. Other colleagues referred to the need for consolidation. It is absolutely the case that in order to make legislation understandable, it must be readable, in the first instance, but it must also be codified in such a way as to allow people to view the law in its entirety. As colleagues are aware, that is not the case. When reading social welfare or finance Bills, one would need a catalogue of previous Acts available in order to make what is proposed understandable. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh made his point forcefully in the context of the civil partnership legislation, in respect of which many changes relating to many aspects of law are required. It would be better if we were to arrive at a position where legislation was codified and that is a matter of which we are mindful and on which successive Governments have been working. The Statute Law Revision Acts of 2007 and 2009 and this Bill set out, in their Schedules, the pre-1922 legislation that is continuing in force. Instead of having 60,000 Acts, we will have a comparatively small number setting out the Acts that are retained. For the first time we know the modern applicability of those Acts because they will be set out in the Schedules.

The mandate given to the statute law revision project was to keep Acts wholly if they have relevance. If an Act has 100 sections and ten of them are applicable, the entire Act will be kept. Acts that are wholly of no relevance are being, effectively, deleted from the Statute Book.

Members have queried the applicability of the 2,116 Acts. The Dublin Fire Brigade, for example, was established by an Act in 1862. Are we suggesting that Act should go? No, we are not. The establishment of the Dublin Fire Brigade, a core function of the service provided in the city, is still relevant. The Coroners Courts were established by Acts of 1876, which make provision for the maintenance of the Coroners Courts. We are not going to throw that legislation out, because it is still applicable today. Deputy Fleming and others referred to the Railway Acts. The lines the Deputy mentioned are still in place. The legislation was good at the time and remains good now. Following the clean-up operation that has occurred, we will have a clear picture of more than 2,000 Acts that are applicable.

Our mandate is clear. We only knock out an entire Act if all of its sections are irrelevant. Where some sections of an Act have relevance, it remains on the Statute Book.

When the State was established, everything that went before was not obliterated from Irish historiography in some kind of cultural revolution. Previous legislation remained on the Statute Book by virtue of Article 73 of the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann. Furthermore, Article 50 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states that laws in force in Saorstát Éireann "shall continue to be of full force and effect". When we accepted the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann and Bunreacht na hÉireann we accepted, implicitly, the 60,000 pre-1922 Acts.

Since 2003, as Deputy White said, we have been looking at those Acts and their applicability and relevance to modern Ireland.

Deputy Fleming asked about Queens County. If the printed version of an Act says "King's County" or "Queen's County" it is an historical fact that they were called that at the time. Deputy Catherine Murphy spoke about legacy. We must work in the context of what was enacted at the time. Those names do not have applicability today but we cannot obliterate them, as though there had been a cultural revolution. I hope that is clear.

Deputy Fleming also referred to an Act listed in Schedule 1 which refers to Tyrone. I understand the Act concerns lands in County Louth, although Tyrone is mentioned in the subject matter.

The use of interns was questioned. Significant work was done on this project for a considerable length of time. People obtained huge experience. Their involvement in the process has been to our advantage and theirs. Some Deputies were critical of the fact that interns were involved. Legal researchers and people with a particular knowledge of historical legislation were also involved. This is a cumulative piece of work involving many different people across Departments.

I thank colleagues for the cross-party support for the legislation and for the considered views expressed. This is not the end of the process. It continues. I assure the House of the Government's intention to continue this work in the lifetime of the Government and to recognise the work of the previous Government in this regard.

See this speech in context