Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies from all sides of the House for the very constructive contributions we have had on this Bill and for the considered views that have been expressed during the debate.

I do not expect many people in Deputy Daly's office to agree with me on many issues. However, I would like to challenge that individual within her office, whose view she shared with the House and who considers this Bill to be a snoozefest. It really depends on what one views the job of a legislator to be. As I outlined in my opening contribution, and I was pleased to see so many speakers from other sides of the House outlining this as well, while we tend to focus on the creation of new legislation in this House, and that is very important, we must also be mindful of our obligations as legislators and as representatives of the citizens of this country on the need to remove that which is no longer relevant and, therefore, should be removed. I note that this process and the benefit of the work of the statute law revision programme, which has been going on for some years, has been recognised by the House.

Deputy Daly referred to this as "historical". It is anything but. Deputy Ó Snodaigh probably does not expect me to say this but I very much enjoyed his contribution because I find the historical aspects are fascinating because they open so many questions, both at a national level about our history and also, as he rightly illustrated, at very local and community levels, where people will pick up nuggets and insights into their own past and potential projects and community ventures that can be pursued in terms of further exploring that. The Bill is much more than just historical. When Government was considering this legislation, and one can only presume when previous Governments were considering it, it could be seen that there are a number of benefits to citizens in its current form. For example, there are benefits to our competitiveness. I believe the legislation and, indeed, the entire programme can have a direct effect on our national competitiveness by cutting costs associated with doing business and for industry in establishing their legal rights and obligations. We keep saying we want this country to be the best place in a world in which to do business. Bills like this make a difference in terms of our competitiveness and reducing red tape. The Bill has positive implications for quality regulation, employment, industry and small businesses in that the proposals will assist the burden on those users in regard to how they interact with our Statute Book. I believe the whole revision programme, which has been going on for 13 years now and has been progressing quite well, will simplify the Statute Book and is intended to reduce legal costs and business transaction costs.

Furthermore, law should not be written just to be understood or comprehended by lawyers or by courts. It is the law that is owned by all of our citizens. There is a duty on all of us in this House, on all sides and regardless of our political views, to make sure that the Irish Statute Book is accessible to everybody and that a person should not have to have a PhD to read it. Improved accessibility of the Statute Book will bring additional benefits to those who have difficulties in accessing the law, such as the socially excluded and vulnerable people and I would go so far as to say to all citizens who have an interest in ascertaining their rights and responsibilities under the law in the Republic in which they live. I do not accept that the Bill is historical, while there is clearly an historical element that one comes across when debating it. This Bill will greatly assist citizens in establishing the exact nature of their rights and obligations, which may currently be either unknown, unclear or harder to ascertain as a result of obsolete and unnecessary former laws and secondary instruments on the Statute Book. I look forward to further debate in the House on the Bill. The adoption of the Bill would lighten the compliance burden on both business and citizens, and allow them to concentrate their efforts as they interact with the State on the law that is relevant to them and to this country in its modern day.

There were several interesting questions, some of which we will return to on Committee Stage to tease out. The issue of licence for granting of arms being retained was a fair point raised by Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Daly. To clarify, the Bill retains in Schedule 1 a number of licences which authorise the use of a particular name and arms which were granted to specific Irish people. As the instruments confer ongoing rights, they are not suitable for revocation in the Statue Law Revision Bill. The grant of arms continues to be dealt with by the Genealogical Office in the National Library and remains relevant in the present day. Licences which relate to the use of a name only, rather than name and arms, are being revoked as the change of the use of surnames is not legally regulated at present, so there is no necessity for these licences to remain in force. It is not being done for that reason, and I hope this provides some clarity in that regard.

In regard to the next steps, it is important to acknowledge that while the Bill is a very important step, and I have outlined why I believe it has current benefits for citizens, I am pleased to advise the House that work is already well underway on the next Bill, which will repeal spent and obsolete Acts enacted post-1922, and work has commenced on a further Bill to drive the review of secondary instruments forward, to continue on from the Bill dealing with that period.

As far as this Bill is concerned, it will achieve the repeal of what is objectively a huge volume of spent or obsolete legal instruments. The removal of these instruments represents another important step towards the aim of a clear and concise Statute Book which reduces the regulatory burden on businesses and citizens and enhances accessibility for the general public. I look forward to exploring further and discussing with Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others on Committee Stage some of the points that have been made in regard to whether we can make revoked material available and easily accessible. There are practical difficulties in that, as I am sure the Deputy can appreciate. However, let us certainly have that discussion and explore it.

In concluding the Second Stage debate, I make the point that this Bill is clearly not the end of the process - far from it. However, it constitutes another milestone in the creation of a modern and accessible Statute Book and it paves the way for further modernisation measures that we can build on from this Bill and the assessment of more recent legislation. I understand Committee Stage is due on 5 May. I look forward to it being taken on that occasion and to further interaction with Members on all sides of the House. I thank Deputies for the expressions of gratitude for the great work that has been undertaken by the team of officials over a sustained period of time. It is great that this work is continuing to bear fruit. I commend the passage of Second Stage.

See this speech in context