Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Before I begin my closing remarks, I would like to thank the Members who participated in this debate. It has been a really informed and thoughtful discussion. Deputy Seán Crowe mentioned that I was taking copious notes. I will paraphrase some comments. Deputy Farrell said that this body of work has afforded us all a trip down memory lane, and it really has. Deputy Ó Murchú said this was an important piece of legislative housekeeping, which I thought was quite good terminology. Deputy Ó Snodaigh's passion for history really shines when he talks about particular incidents that have been captured in legislation. Often that goes as far back as Famine times, as Deputy Mattie McGrath has said. He also spoke about the impact these laws had at the time and on our own Irish history but also the impact they had on other countries in terms of the spread of our diaspora. He mentioned Australia in particular. Only last week I was in Australia as part of the Government's St. Patrick's Day programme and had the opportunity to meet many descendents of people from that time, Irish people over there. The Deputy is right that many of these laws were the catalyst that led to this situation.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh had a question about the laws that were not going to be revoked. Section 1 provides that the instruments are all going to be revoked, unless they are actually named as what will be retained. Some 37,000 were already identified as obsolete as part of this body of work. The vast majority of these are all being revoked.

Deputy Robert O'Donoghue said that we are considered world leaders when it comes to updating our statute books. I think that is really valid. It is probably because we needed to be, as Ireland has a unique legislative past that has left us with laws from the passage of parliaments in Ireland, England, Great Britain and the UK as well as our Oireachtas. Deputy Gibney correctly called out the important role our Law Reform Commission plays in carrying out public service. Many of our colleagues today have acknowledged the incredible, painstaking work it has done. Deputy Connolly also commended the Library and Research Service publication that has provided us with a summary of that detailed work.

Deputy Malcolm Byrne had two very interesting thoughts.

One related to the Sinnott family and the amnesty he spoke about. The Sinnott family and his constituents might benefit from knowing that scans of each order in full are now available on the Law Reform Commission website. It is to be hoped that is a trip down their own memory lane.

Regarding his comments on commercial rates, and the fact that they are legally established on 200-year-old laws, I fully appreciate where he is coming from. Given my former role as a Minister of State in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I understand we have a changing landscape when it comes to how business is being done. Perhaps that needs to be examined. That would be a matter for the Minister for local government.

Deputy Cathal Crowe suggested posthumous pardons for people who were killed by laws that are now obsolete. Deputy McGuinness referred to such cases as attempts to criminalise acts of survival. In many cases, that is what they were. To be totally frank, I do not know whether that is possible or how big a job it would be if it was possible. It is certainly something I will consider and I will work with my colleagues in the Department and Law Reform Commission on that.

Deputy Connolly had a specific question on the commencement of legislation and on statutory reviews. That is beyond the scope of the Bill. She made reference to an OECD report. I would like to put on the record that the report referred to the SLRC Acts in Ireland as impressive. We cannot get much higher praise from it than that.

Deputy O'Donoghue spoke about the fact that the Bill will reduce the burden on businesses, and I fully agree with him on that. It will have a positive impact. It was interesting to hear from Deputy Ward that 20 years ago he worked on this project under a different guise. I commend him on his work and his interest in this project over the past 20 years. He shows an interest in modernising our statute laws, which is to be commended. I take on board his suggestion regarding the ongoing consolidation of Acts, rather than repealing an Act and introducing it in a more modern form, and having an Act and then an amendment to an Act. He may already be aware that the Law Reform Commission has revised Acts available on its website, of which there are 500 so far. A lot of progress is happening.

The Bill we have considered today proposes the revocation of all statutory and prerogative instruments made before 1 January 1861, except for the instruments which will be retained in Schedule 1. As we have all acknowledged, over 40,000 secondary instruments have been reviewed by the Law Reform Commission to ascertain whether they were obsolete or to be repealed or retained. The Bill is the seventh statute law revision Bill in a programme, the aim of which is to ensure that Ireland has a modern and accessible Statute Book.

Tidying up all of the spent and obsolete secondary instruments made between 1 January 1821 and 1 January 1861 will contribute significantly towards improving the overall regulatory environment in Ireland. It will simplify and modernise our laws and make the statute book more intelligible. That will save time and money for those who need to know what laws are enforced and it will make it easier for the public to access justice.

Before I conclude, I thank everybody who spent long days and evenings sifting through Ireland's history in our statute book. I thank all Members for their involvement in this debate, in particular Senator Victor Boyhan who worked so collaboratively with us in order to make the change I will introduce. I look forward to further engagement on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context