Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill provides for the repeal of 219 Acts that predate the foundation of the State. These are statutes that were enacted before 6 December 1922 that are no longer in force and are considered to be spent, obsolete or no longer of practical utility. It is the result of detailed research on the part of the Office of the Attorney General and extensive public consultation.

Some months ago, the Taoiseach laid out an ambitious plan to remove from the Statute Book the remnants of legislation which pre-date independence and, where necessary, to replace it with legislation more suited to our modern, democratic state. This plan is one part of the Government's wider commitment to better regulation and regulatory reform, a commitment laid out most clearly in the White Paper, Regulating Better, published in January 2004. Through this Bill, it is intended to help streamline the Statute Book by eliminating those pre-1922 statutes which have no relevance to modern conditions. As legislators, we have a tendency to add laws to the Statute Book but rarely to take any away. Statute law revision Bills, such as this one, help to redress this imbalance by lightening the load of regulation on our society.

This Bill will also reduce some of the practical problems and difficulties caused by pre-1922 legislation. One key difficulty is that pre-1922 statutes can be difficult for citizens and legal advisers to obtain physically. Such provisions are not nearly as accessible as the legislation enacted by the Oireachtas in the period since 1922 which is electronically available. In contrast, not only are the pre-1922 statutes not available electronically but some can only be read in volumes that are out of print. Another difficulty is that these laws, some of which date back to the 13th century, are written in a language and terminology which is obsolete and archaic. There are fundamental problems in requiring people to be bound by laws which they cannot reasonably be expected to find, interpret or understand. This Bill is part of the solution to that problem.

I will detail the substance of the Bill, but I would first like to outline to the House the wider better regulation agenda, the context in which this Bill appears. EU and OECD countries increasingly use the term "better regulation" to describe efforts being made to improve the quality and, where practicable, to reduce the quantity of regulation. It is important, however, to stress that better regulation is not simply deregulation. In some cases, removing regulations completely may well be the correct approach to take. In other cases and in fact more often, better regulation is about amending, consolidating, simplifying, updating or streamlining to improve on existing regulation.

One of the basic principles of better regulation is that the State should improve both the flow of new legislation and the existing stock of laws and regulations. The primary method by which the flow of new regulation is being tackled is through the introduction in June this year of regulatory impact analysis. This approach requires Departments to consult more widely with interested parties before regulating and to analyse in greater detail the likely downstream impacts of a proposed Bill or statutory instrument before presenting it to the Oireachtas. In the longer term, this process should lead to the drafting of better quality regulation that appropriately deals with the intended issue and does not negatively impact on other areas.

The second element of a good regulatory system is managing the stock of existing laws and rules. While it is critical to improve the quality and manage the flow of new regulations coming on stream, we must simultaneously tackle the body of existing laws and regulations. That is where this Bill fits in. Some of the laws and rules set out in the Schedule to this Bill are archaic and a heavy burden on the economy and society as a whole. That is why the Taoiseach asked the Attorney General last year to examine if it is necessary to carry forward into our Statute Book laws that were enacted as far back as the 13th century. This Bill is the first step towards removing some of this redundant legislation — the dead wood.

I wish to point out to the House the difference between law reform and law revision. Law reform is concerned with the substantive nature of the law. It changes the effective rights and duties which apply in our society. Law revision does not change the substantive law. It merely sweeps away those laws which no longer have any substantive effect. It is the process of removing legislation that has lost any modern purpose from the Statute Book. In this process, our citizens and legal professionals are given a greater level of certainty as to the state of the law. If this dead wood were not removed in this way, it would be very difficult in practice to determine which laws do and do not have continuing relevance.

Statute law revision also makes the process of enacting modern regulations more efficient. When preparing new legislation, earlier and existing legislation must be appropriately assessed to see what must be repealed or amended in light of the proposed new law. The greater the volume of such earlier material, the greater the effort and time that must go into this analysis. Given, as I indicated earlier, that much of the pre-1922 legislation is not available electronically or is listed only in old, out of print texts, this assessment can be an arduous, time-consuming and costly process. Statute law revision can help to reduce this burden on the Parliamentary Counsel and the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Ultimately, removing the legal dead wood facilitates the process of regulatory reform and plays a critical role in contributing to the maintenance of an updated, relevant and coherent Statute Book. In reducing the time spent locating and consulting the Statute Book to determine the law on a particular point, it also enables the wider legal and judicial system to operate more efficiently and effectively.

The Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill deals only with primary legislation from the years prior to Independence and is primarily concerned with laws passed by a number of parliaments which had authority over Ireland over a period of eight centuries. Plans are being developed within the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that secondary legislation will also be dealt with in due course.

At the time this Bill was introduced in the Seanad late last year, it covered 91 statutes. However, the Attorney General's office has continued its detailed research and has since identified many more statutes for repeal. As a result, the Bill was amended in the Seanad so that it now provides for the repeal of 219 Acts.

The statutes covered by this Bill fall into the following categories: Irish statutes passed before the union with Britain, which are laws passed by various parliaments sitting in Ireland between 1200 and 1800; English statutes passed before 1495 which were applied to Ireland and which mostly consist of laws passed by English Parliaments which were applied by virtue of Poynings Law in 1495; English statutes passed between 1495 and 1707 which were applied to Ireland; British statutes which were applied to Ireland which are statutes passed by Westminster Parliaments after the union of England and Scotland in 1707 but before the union of Britain and Ireland in 1800; and Acts of the late United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland passed after the Act of Union in 1800 but before the establishment of Saorstát Éireann in 1922 and which applied to Ireland.

As the Deputies will note, most of this legislation was enacted by the Parliament of the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This general body of statute law was continued in force by Article 73 of the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann and Article 50 of the Constitution of Ireland. Pre-1922 legislation still effective in Ireland, therefore spans back as far as the year 1200.

The varied nature of the sources of this legislation leads to a degree of uncertainty in the Statute Book. For example, a large volume of legislation was passed by the Parliament of Great Britain between 1707 and 1800, but only a small percentage of that legislation ever applied to Ireland. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a time-consuming exercise. Similarly, a large fraction of the legislation passed in Westminster from 1801 onward did not apply to Ireland. Therefore, in many cases, each Act must be carefully analysed to determine whether it applied to Ireland. The best way to minimise the practical problems caused by these and other complications is to have a vibrant policy of statute law revision.

Another reason for keeping statute law under review is that many of the old Acts have titles which are offensive such as lands of idiots and lunatics. It is not appropriate to have such legislation on our Statute Book and the removal of this antiquated and insulting material affirms the respect the State owes to all its citizens, regardless of their circumstances. It is timely that we repeal such statutes now as the Law Reform Commission recently recommended that phrases such as "idiot", "lunatics" and "those of unsound mind" be removed from legislation.

In the past two centuries, only a few statute law revision measures have been enacted to clarify, repeal and reform the entire body of law remaining on the Statute Book. Several major statute law revision Acts in the Victorian era repealed a considerable quantity of pre-Union Irish legislation. This type of omnibus repealing legislation was repeated in 1962 and 1983.

A significant amount of pre-1922 legislation has also been repealed in the normal course of law making by the Oireachtas, especially in the various large consolidation Acts which have modernised certain areas of law at different times. However, these Acts are a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, a thorough programme of law revision. Such a programme exists in the United Kingdom, where more than 2,000 Acts have been repealed and at least 2,600 more were partially repealed by the statute law repeals legislation, drafted by various law commissions. This left Ireland in the curious situation where many old English and British Acts remain in force here, despite having been repealed in the UK.

The need for statute law revision in Ireland was recognised through the establishment in 1999 of the statute law revision unit in the Office of the Attorney General. The unit was responsible for drafting the Bill, which represents the first broad-ranging statute law revision exercise for more than 20 years. Other EU and OECD countries have initiated similar programmes to streamline and codify their respective Statute Books. In recent times, the European Commission has given commitments to the reduction by 25% of the acquis communautaire, the existing body of Community treaty and subsidiary law.

The Bill deals exclusively with those statutes passed before 6 December 1922 which are no longer in force and considered to be spent, or which remain in force but are no longer of practical utility. Many Acts from that period, however, continue to form the cornerstone of Irish law, including the Conveyancing Act 1634, the Statute of Frauds 1695, and the Sale of Goods Act 1893. These Acts will not be repealed or affected by the Bill.

When the initial review of English, British and UK legislation commenced, it was decided from the point of view of time and resources to confine the exercise to an audit of legislation available from The Statutes Revised, a UK publication. Later, an expanded programme of assessment was based on a more comprehensive series of publications, The Statutes of the Realm. The main source of pre-Union Irish statutes was a revised version known as Cullinan's, The Irish Statutes 1310 to 1800, but other sources going back to 1200 were also examined. The cut-off year of 1922 is the date from which the Irish State began to legislate for itself. The review process that followed, involved the statute law revision unit examining the relevant legislation to ascertain the extent to which the legislation outlined was still in force in Ireland, by reference to the chronological tables pre- and post-1922. These tables show how, and when, legislation has been amended since its enactment.

As a result of the review, a list was compiled of all legislation identified as being in force which dated from the period between 1200 and 1922. It was decided to exclude from the review areas, legislation known to be the subject of active policy consideration by Departments or part of the programme for Government such as criminal law, conveyancing and land law, revenue law, liquor licensing law, water services law, consumer law, merchant shipping and fisheries law and the law relating to harbours and railways. Even after these large categories were excluded, hundreds of other Acts were identified as being possibly obsolete, spent, or no longer having practical utility.

The next step was to hold public and departmental consultations. A public web-based consultation was launched and Departments were supplied with a list of Acts relevant to their respective areas of responsibility. They were asked for agreement with the preliminary view formed by the Office of the Attorney General on those Acts proposed for repeal. In many instances, multiple consultations with many officials and sections within Departments were required, as well as numerous cross-­departmental ones. It was also essential in various instances to confer with subsidiary bodies and agencies with responsibility for, or an interest in, particular legislative provisions. It often transpired that Acts which no longer appeared to be of practical utility were still in use. Officials were also invited to make suggestions on the modernisation of that legislation which remained in force. The result of the exercise was the drawing up of the list of Acts set out in the Schedule which it is now proposed to repeal.

The Schedule lists 219 statutes for repeal. However, I will bring forward amendments on Committee Stage to change this list slightly. The result of further ongoing research into the pre-1922 legislation is that we are now in a position to include some additional statutes and several of those now listed should not be repealed at present. A separate exercise will be needed to repeal legislation enacted after Independence which remains in force but is no longer of practical utility. While there are no firm plans to undertake such an exercise, it would be a very useful continuation of the Bill's streamlining approach which could be undertaken if resources permit.

The Bill is short but effective. Section 1 provides for the repeal of legislation which consists of the public general statutes enumerated in the Schedule, together with one particular Act as set out in of section 1(2). Section 2 is a standard saving section and section 3 is the Short Title.

The Bill is only one element of a plan the Taoiseach outlined. The ultimate objective is to remove from the Statute Book all pre-1922 legislation and replace it with legislation passed by the democratically elected representatives of the people. Other elements of the Taoiseach's plan are well in-train. For example, the Office of the Attorney General commenced a project that will provide a comprehensive database of all pre-1922 public general legislation. The database will provide a template for future revision. I hope it will be possible to make the database electronically accessible by the public. Subject to appropriate cost-benefit analysis, projects to assess pre-1922 local, personal and private Acts and pre-1922 secondary legislation may be devised after completion of the study of public and general statutes. It is envisaged that a programme of repeal of pre-1922 legislation and re-enactment in modern form where necessary will be commenced on a Department by Department basis.

The repeal of the Acts identified in the Bill, and of any additional Acts that may be included for repeal on Committee Stage, will create a more accessible, coherent and transparent Statute Book. The Bill falls squarely within the Government's agenda for better regulation, bringing benefits to society and the economy through lower legal and transaction costs, while increasing the credibility of the legal system. Complete updating of the Statute Book is a significant task which will best be accomplished through a phased programme of measures. I thank all officials who have worked hard on the Bill's preparation. The Bill is an important first step and I commend its enactment to the House.

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the broad process of the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill which aims to tidy up the Statute Book by removing 219 Acts that have either become obsolete or have fallen from use. It is part of a commitment by the Government to streamline the list of Acts on the Statute Books and to maintain only those Acts which are of use. Better regulation is increasingly being used in EU and OECD countries to describe government efforts to improve the quality and, where necessary, reduce the quantity of regulations. Regulation includes both primary and secondary legislation, as well as subsidiary rules including administrative circulars and red tape. Statute law revision is the process of repealing legislation that has lost any modern relevance. There have been many statute revision Acts since the foundation of the State, the last one in 1983, which have repealed Acts from a 700-year period.

While this is welcome, when will the language of the law be repealed? I recall the Seanad debating the need to simplify and modernise the language used in legal documents and Acts. After years of reading Acts as legislators, one often must read a section some four times before getting the full implications of what it means. Some countries have modernised legal language. While it would be a marathon effort with the legal profession to undertake such an exercise, it would be a very valuable one in ensuring citizens, affected by all laws, understand them.

The process entered into this Act is welcome as Acts not in use or not necessary should not remain in force. Fine Gael supports the principle that Acts not in use should not remain in force. It also supports the rationale behind it of managing the range of existing laws and regulations while improving the quality of current legislation and monitoring the flow of new legislation coming on stream.

It is heartening to see that the Government is finally making an effort to deliver on some of the commitments it made in its programme for Government 1997-2002. If only it would deliver on some of the more important promises it made on health care, justice and not wasting taxpayers' money. It is clear this Bill, originally introduced last year, is far from a priority for the Government. It is a simple Bill that could have come into force almost a year ago with a little more effort from the Government. Instead, it has meandered through the Houses of the Oireachtas with painful torpor and endemic inertia that is symptomatic of this Government's attitude to passing legislation.

This Bill only deals with Acts between the Statute of Winchester 1285 and the Treaties of Washington Act 1922 and does not address the large number of obsolete statutory instruments that remain in Irish law. The Minister of State might let us know what plans he has to deal with the area of statutory instruments. Fine Gael is committed to making laws and statutory instruments that are readily available to the public at large, and sees better regulation not just as buzz words that make us sound good and garner a few lines in the press but as a manner in which Government should seek to operate. It is a process that goes beyond legislation. It should permeate every decision and action of the Government.

This Government claims to be in favour of better regulation but this is not supported by either its actions or its words. For example, the Interpretation Act 2005 started as the Interpretation Bill 2000. It took five years to become law. There never was a more stark example of where this Government's priorities lie. When the Interpretation Bill 2000 was going through the Oireachtas Fine Gael tabled a number of amendments to the effect that there should be updates and explanatory memoranda published with all new legislation, that new statutes should be published on-line within one day of having been passed and that Acts that had not been used for three years should automatically lapse. All of these amendments reflected considered measures that would bring about better regulation but they were roundly rejected by the Government at that time. We even had a fight in the Seanad to have the Act come into force upon its signature by the President, rather than six months later as the Government wished. My colleague, Senator Cummins, made the point that for successive Governments, including this Government, improving Statute Book tables takes a back seat to everything else.

Improving the Statute Book has never been a political aim as it does not garner votes for any party. The task of tidying up the Statute Book does not lend itself to immediately visible results and it is a tedious and expensive task. The level of finance expended is not always fairly reflected in the amount of progress apparent. The high cost of rendering some order to the Statute Book can provide ammunition to those who are cynical about the merits and effects of such efforts.

The statute law revision project which gave rise to and is the basis for this Bill could not have commenced without the support of the Attorney General. It is imperative the process does not fizzle out. A great deal more work must be done if real improvements are to be made to the Statute Book. I welcome this Bill not as an end in itself but as a tool toward improving the Statute Book for the future. I ask the Minister of State to clarify the situation with regard to the Statute Law Restatement Act 2002, which should allow for an official consolidation of Acts to be published. This unofficial consolidation could then be used in the courts without the process of passing through the Oireachtas, but to my knowledge, there is not any example of this legislation being used in the three years or so since its enactment. This is another way in which we could better manage the Statute Book without unduly burdening the Oireachtas with Consolidation Acts.

Will the Minister of State clarify whether he intends to add any further statutes to the Schedule to the Bill other than those he indicated at the end of his speech, given that he increased the number of Acts to be repealed by a staggering 240% from 91 to 218 on Committee Stage in the Seanad? He might let us know if other Acts will come under consideration during the passage of the Bill through Committee and Report Stages in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I oppose the practice that has become a habit, particularly with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, of radically reshaping legislation after Second Stage, because it removes the necessary time to deliberate and consider future legislation and its effects. On this occasion, however, I welcome the fact that the Bill is to be more encompassing than it was when it was first proposed in the Seanad. Nonetheless it begs the question, asked by Senator Brian Hayes on Committee Stage, whether the Minister of State would not be better advised to wait until the Attorney General was satisfied that no other Acts or statutes should be added to the Bill. The Minister of State alluded to work that was ongoing to review statutes pertaining to intoxicating liquor, land and employment rights.

The Minister of State said it would not be long before somebody came back to the House to undertake further work in this area. Since he has made clear his objective is to repeal all pre-1922 legislation so that there will be no need to revise the body of law I ask him to apprise the House of his intentions. Could he tell us in detail what plans he has, if any, to introduce another statute revision Bill and when we might be likely to see any draft of such a Bill?

I welcome the effort to tidy up legislative history. I join the Minister of State in recognising that there is more work to do and that this Bill represents only the beginning of this important process. I look forward to further initiatives in this vein and more work to manage the Statute Book. I commend the Minister of State on drawing our attention to the need to keep Statute Law under review because some old Acts have titles which are offensive, such as "lands of idiots" and "lunatics". The Law Reform Commission recently recommended the removal of phrases such as "idiots", "lunatics" and "those of unsound mind" from legislation. The Minister of State might be aware of my interest in this area.

I look forward to going one step further, though I do not know if it is in the Minister of State's power to do so, by removing those terms from general everyday use. The use of such terms and others like "barmy" and "off the wall" has a profound effect on the 20% of people who suffer from a psychiatric illness and it stigmatises people. They inhibit people from accepting that they have an illness.

The illness may become more profound because it is not accepted or treated. By the time the illness becomes serious, the treatment will not have the same effect that it would if the illness were treated at an earlier stage. It also labels people for life, although this is waning somewhat. Nevertheless people, especially young people, are inhibited from seeking help because they label themselves. Even if these people look for assistance and treatment in private and in confidence, a degree of self-labelling occurs that would stop these people from seeking the help.

I look forward to a time when we can remove some of the terminology that is loosely applied to those who suffer from a psychiatric illness or an emotional difficulty, as it would be helpful in making progress on the issue of psychiatric illness. The Minister of State discussed a removal of such references from Acts. Similarly, some offensive references to African-Americans were very much in use until the 1960s and 1970s but are now unacceptable in the United States. I will leave discussion of the issue of the availability of psychiatric services to another Minister.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As we approach this Bill, one wonders what the views would have been of those who worked and fought for Irish independence in that it has taken over 80 years to repeal statutes that existed prior to independence. Even at that, we are only dealing with statutes that are redundant.

The Bill before us is the product of a fairly lengthy process. The strategic management initiative working group on regulatory reform produced its report, Reducing Red Tape — An Action Programme of Regulatory Reform in Ireland, in 1999. The report followed Delivering Better Government, which was published in 1996 and outlined the principles that should underpin regulatory reform. It stated that the quality rather than the quantity of regulations should be improved; unnecessary and inefficient regulations, including legislation, should be eliminated; necessary regulation and related procedures should be simplified as much as possible; the cost of regulatory cost should be lowered; and regulations should be made more accessible to the public. In each case the public interest should be protected.

The commitment was to make legislation more coherent and easily accessible to those who need it. As part of the process, the Government likes to trumpet that a separate unit to address the issue, the statute law revision and consolidation unit, was established in the Office of the Attorney General. This was merely the restoration of a unit which had previously been suppressed as a cost-cutting measure for many years. The current impenetrable state of the Statute Book is a result of the failure to maintain that unit throughout those years. If it is now agreed that poor regulatory practices impose additional costs on business and administration, it is worth remembering that the practices were imposed to save costs in the first place.

The process of reviewing our regulatory system culminated in the 2004 Government White Paper, Regulating Better. The paper made the commitment on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General that:

A programme (under the remit of the Statute Law Revision Unit) will be put in place to analyse pre-1922 legislation with a view to:

Identifying moribund legislation and repealing it through the introduction of a Bill;

Re-enacting legislation that is still useful, removing anomalies in the process; and

Streamlining/simplifying the Statute Book as necessary.

The promised delivery date was spring 2004. In fairness to this Bill, which perhaps intends to deliver on the first of the three commitments, it was published in November last year, a mere six months late. We have heard nothing of the other two commitments, the re-enactment of still useful legislation and the streamlining and simplification of the Statute Book.

When the Bill was first published it included just 90 Acts, constituting the sum total of legislation produced over 687 years that is no longer useful, relevant or even comprehensible. However, the statute law revision unit's own website stated that it had identified approximately 100 Acts that possibly needed to be repealed. A consultation process was initiated with Departments and other relevant bodies to confirm that these laws were no longer in use. The Bill before us was amended in the Seanad to provide for a total of 219 Acts to be repealed. These include legislation governing the British civil list, German reparations, the tobacco plantation trade and the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1881. One might question why that statute was not repealed when the Houses dealt with what is now the Veterinary Practice Act 2005.

The statute law revision unit has stated that it plans to continue to advise the Government on the modernisation of the remaining pre-1922 legislation, such as repeal and re-enactment with absurdities removed. The word "absurdities" is the unit's own. It is shocking to think that those in charge of the state and health of the Statute Book consider some of the legislation under their remit to be absurd. Four years ago, an 1854 provision was repealed that made it a criminal offence to beat or shake a carpet, rug or mat after 9 a.m. However, it was considered necessary to retain in force provisions in the same Act that deal with furious driving by jarvies. The Act also empowered a garda to drive away an unattended hackney carriage and deposit it in a neighbouring livery stable. These provisions remain on the Statute Book.

The statute law revision unit is meanwhile in charge of producing codified statute law restatements, of which there have been four since the enabling Act was passed in 2002. Much work is needed in this area to restore a coherent framework to the legislation that we have passed since independence. If anyone interested in the process, be they layman or lawyer, is asked to identify the laws still in force governing the courts system, for example, they will quickly get lost.

The unit also compiles and publishes the indices to statutes which must be consulted to ascertain what legislation is in operation and what has been amended by subsequent enactments. These indices are not available until the end of the year following the year of enactment. This task of revision, restatement, consolidation and repeal of what is by now 770 years of legislation is entrusted to a staff of two. According to the website the permanent resources of the SLRU comprise a director at assistant secretary grade and a deputy director at assistant principal grade. With the best will in the world it is difficult to see how a unit with such meagre resources can deliver on the commitments set in the Office of the Attorney General's revised action plan which was published earlier this year.

The same two-person unit plans to devise a comprehensive database of all pre-1922 public general legislation. Work was due to commence in April 2005. The database will provide a template for future statute law revision and will be electronically accessible by the end of 2005. That should not be as difficult as it sounds as the bulk of the work has already been done in Northern Ireland where an on-line version of the complete Statute Book has been available for some years. When one considers that both jurisdictions shared an identical Statute Book until 1922, one wonders why formal co-operation in this area was not identified as an obvious area for North-South co-operation.

The statute law revision unit has stated that arising from the continued study of pre-1922 legislation, it is anticipated that a further revision Bill may be required to repeal a considerable number of additional Acts. An assessment is also being undertaken on the possibility of publishing by the end of 2005 a new type of revision Act which would depart from the normal statute law revision mechanism of repeal which is essentially negative. This Bill would positively list all remaining legislation to give clarity to citizens and legal professionals as to precisely what pre-1922 legislation remains in force. It is not until that programme has been completed that the final stage will be embarked on. The Government envisages that a programme of re-enactment and repeal of remaining pre-1922 legislation would be subsequently commenced on a Department by Department basis.

There are those who would argue that delivering better government must mean getting by with less government, less bureaucracy and less regulation. If that is the case, however, one must hire more than two officials to go about the job of identifying the rules which one wants to repeal. The 1999 report made the following comment:

It is time consuming and demanding of resources, both political and administrative, to consolidate primary legislation. However, the consolidation of regulations is relatively straightforward. In view of this as a general rule, where new regulations are being promulgated, existing regulations in the same area should be consolidated.

Needless to say, that recommendation has also been consistently ignored.

The Labour Party welcomes this Bill. We will give it constructive consideration on Second Stage and on Committee Stage, but as the authors of the Bill might say, "some done, and much more to do."

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Our coffee will be polluted.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This legislative pruning is necessary and will not be opposed by the Green Party. While we have the opportunity to debate the Bill, we should at least take that opportunity to examine what we are consigning to history. Among the legislation we bid adieu to once this Bill is passed is that which deals with the Magna Carta and the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. I can only presume that Irish common law has already subsumed many of these principles and now that we have a constitutional republic, we have stated rights for our citizens. The fact that this legislation will no longer be on the Irish Statute Book should at least be noted.

Many of these Bills are historical curiosities. I note the Restitution of the Earl of Kildare Bill 1495. If we ever cease to be a constitutional republic and we introduce legislation for the restitution of the Earl of Cork, I might be prepared to make a false claim to that title, even though I am not related to that particular Boyle family.

We have to wonder why much of this legislation ever referred to Ireland, such as the Union with Scotland Act 1706. I presume that we did not care then and care even less now about the precedence of Princess Sophia in 1711. This is all part of the necessary pruning process on which the Government has embarked and will receive full co-operation from the Opposition.

There are some Acts that could be re-introduced, given modern circumstances. It would be interesting to see if they form part of the legislative programme of this or subsequent Governments. The Adulteration of Coffee Act 1718 might have seemed an irrelevance in tea drinking Ireland, but given the latte and cappuccino sensibility we seem to have acquired since the coming of the Celtic tiger, there might be a renewed demand for legislation covering this important area. The Flax and Hemp Seed Act 1810 refers to Ireland. In recent centuries, hemp has got a very bad press, as it has a side effect as a narcotic. However, it is also a durable fabric and at one stage was a mainstay of Irish agriculture. It may yet in the future, given changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, be an alternative replacement product for many Irish farmers.

Has the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform been consulted regarding the Pillory Abolition Act 1816? As an adept user of verbal pillorying, he might regret that this Act is being struck off our own Statute Book. Indeed, he might be encouraged to insert a provision into the Criminal Justice Bill 2005, currently before the House, which re-introduces pillorying. I would not put it past the man.

Fiona O'Malley (Dún Laoghaire, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sure he is well protected.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would not be surprised with any idea he comes up with. Not only is the language content of these Bills offensive to modern vernacular, but the titles of some of them are also quite surprising. The Inferior Courts Officers Act 1858 applies to Ireland, but that is no way to refer to the Judiciary, although there are Members in this House who would be tempted to use that type of language. There are Acts referring to dangerous performances, while one of the later Acts deals with the removal of sex disqualification. Given the confusion that the titles of these Acts would cause in the public mind, it would be a good day's work for the Oireachtas to remove these ambiguities.

There is other interesting legislation that has important historical resonance. There are references to the National School Teachers Residences Act 1875 and other legislation that deals with the development of education in the 19th century. One of the later Bills to come before the British Parliament was a Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provision) Act 1916. Without knowing its contents, it can only be presumed it was some type of appropriation Bill to pay for whatever structural damage was caused in Dublin as a result of the 1916 Rising. It is something worth mentioning in the course of this debate if we are consigning it to history today.

The pre-1922 legislation that will remain on the Statute Book once this Bill becomes an Act is important. What are the Government's plans to introduce new or consolidation legislation in such areas? The Minister of State mentioned in particular the Sale of Goods Act 1893, which is still cornerstone legislation for consumers. We now live in an even greater age of consumerism and the Sale of Goods Act 1893 has been followed by new legislation dealing with consumer issues. That Act and all subsequent consumer legislation should be consolidated. I regret to say it is not a priority in this Government's legislative programme. My party has advocated the creation of a department of consumer affairs to deal with the more wide ranging issues of this legislation. The creation of such a Cabinet post would be justified.

The previous reservation aside, the Green Party wholeheartedly supports the principle behind this Bill. It is not seeking to amend any of the legislation that has been listed in the Schedule for deletion and removal from the Statute Book. We look forward to the expeditious passage of the Bill through the House.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In looking at the 90 Acts that are to be repealed by this Bill, I was struck by a number of them. I have no doubt that the media and the Government press office would take particular interest in the Spinners Act 1733, given the amount of spinning that goes on in Leinster House. In the main, it emanates from the Government benches, although I daresay all Members, irrespective of their political representation——

Fiona O'Malley (Dún Laoghaire, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That must be a first for Sinn Féin.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——feel more spinned against than spinning, with the honourable exception of Deputy Fiona O'Malley.

Undoubtedly, Deputy O'Malley's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, will have noted that the Pillory Abolition Act 1816 is being repealed. However, before he becomes overly enthused, this does not mean that the pillory is returning. Undoubtedly, he has a long list of people who he would like to see placed in the stocks. On the contrary, I hope he finds himself in a difficult situation in another sphere.

The Acts make interesting reading and several of them refer to mining. Given recent news items, it is appropriate to note that for centuries, what can only be described as robber barons came here from the neighbouring island and stole our natural resources. Sadly, we are witnessing a native Government give away our natural resources to another breed of baronial grabbers for nothing and without any return. I speak of the Corrib gas field. The actions in respect of that deal are comparable to the actions of the Members of the College Green Parliament, some of whom sold their country out. Some of them, having accepted bribes from the British Government, voted in the Act of Union. As Deputy Boyle has observed, one cannot let the moment pass without noting that the Act of Union itself is mentioned in this Bill.

Yesterday, I happened to pick up one of Fianna Fáil's popular publications. I noticed that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt, takes a good colour photograph. He must have influence within his party because he appeared on several pages. I refer to Fianna Fáil's new paper, which bears the masthead, The Nation.

What complemented the humorous aspect of this Bill and what I was taken by was the headline on page seven which referred to the "end of empire's laws". This was stirring stuff. The associated article informed us that the Taoiseach had outlined his strategy for removing the legacy of 800 years of foreign unrepresentative Government.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did Deputy Fiona O'Malley get a copy? Does Fianna Fáil share the paper with its coalition partners? The Taoiseach was going to sweep away the remnants of the empire. This was great stuff. I had expected to read this in An Phoblacht some day, but it appeared that Fianna Fáil had beaten us to it.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I may join Fianna Fáil yet.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach went on to state that "ancient laws passed by foreign Parliaments in the name of the British monarchy have no place in our modern democracy". This was surely a trumpet call to the nation and one could hardly read on. I believed, from the way it was written and the enthusiasm of the language used that without our knowledge, in its negotiations and contacts with the British Government, the Fianna Fáil Party had at long last negotiated a British withdrawal from the remainder of this island they have yet to leave and that the Act of Union, to which I referred, had at last been repealed in toto. Alas no, the article was about this legislation over which the Minister of State is presiding.

I hope Deputies will remember that while scrapping redundant pre-1922 legislation in this State is welcome, as I noted earlier, part of our country is still within the jurisdiction of the same foreign monarchy referred to in the Fianna Fáil newspaper, as was the whole island before 1922. Contrary to myth, this is not simply symbolic. It is important to point out that citizens under British jurisdiction do not have the protection of a written constitution. The arbitrary power of the monarch has devolved not to Parliament but to the Queen's ministers, and the British Government can supersede Parliament by means of orders in council. The Minister of State and the Members present need no reminder that it has done so many times in respect of Ireland. While there are amusing aspects to this Bill, I must state that as a Border resident and an Irish republican, it has serious aspects.

The last legislation contained in the Schedule is the Treaties of Washington Act 1922. I was curious about it and asked a colleague to research its origins. In the light of events, some as recent as yesterday, it makes for interesting and tragic reading. The Washington treaties were signed in the wake of the First World War by the British Empire, as it was probably then described, France, Italy and Japan. The treaties regulated naval warfare and the treatment of neutral countries and banned the use of poisonous gas and chemicals. As with many such treaties signed by imperial powers, they were broken before the ink was dry on the paper. In 1922, while the British Government fomented civil war here in Ireland with the Black and Tans, it waged wars of terror on subject peoples in Asia. I refer specifically to Mesopotamia which, broadly speaking, corresponds to modern Iraq.

Imperial powers are again aping the situation that then applied and Iraq today is suffering the disastrous consequences of the approach employed. This in no way gives any credence or merit to either Saddam Hussein or the regime he imposed on his people. I reject them both. However, it is appropriate to take this opportunity to join other Members in expressing my concern for Rory Carroll and my solidarity with his family at this distressful time. I hope that the next breaking news bulletins will feature Rory Carroll's safe and early release by his captors. That is the wish of all Members.

This Bill is a small step towards tidying up the Statute Book. The Government has spoken of codifying laws, but our laws are far from being codified. I believe this point was made earlier by another Deputy. They are not easily accessible and, like most of the justice system, they are a closed book to most citizens. In recent days, we have seen examples of how some of the legal profession's elite have abused their position of privilege and, allegedly, are allowed to double-charge citizens who were victims of abuse. This is a dreadful practice. Fortunately, the issue has been adequately addressed by now and I hope it will be redressed speedily.

This practice and protected profession is another legacy of our oppressed past with which we must grapple and dispense. While we are getting rid of laws dating from the 18th century and much earlier, it is long past the time to get rid of the 18th century hangovers that still haunt our courts and their practices. No case exists to defend the continued use of the gown and wig approach which gives the sense that the law is above the people. It puts it on a different plane. The law must be and is of the people. It is made and passed by Members, acting as parliamentarians and legislators, who are representative of the people. It is time to hang up the surviving trappings and put them away in mothball boxes. Civil law should exist to serve the citizenry and the State. A recent report published by the Free Legal Aid Centres in July stated:

This FLAC report demonstrates that after 25 years of State legal aid, the scheme has failed to achieve its stated goals. Despite the ongoing commitment and dedication of staff and board members, it neither provides the necessary service nor ensures that it is delivered to all those entitled to it.

Excluding a specialised service provided by the Refugee Legal Service, the Legal Aid Board employs a total of 89 solicitors to deliver the entire civil legal aid scheme in 30 law centres throughout Ireland. This is less than the number employed in some large legal firms in Dublin. Small wonder then that waiting lists for civil legal aid in many centres have been extremely lengthy, leaving people without any legal assistance for as long as two years in some locations.

This is a very disturbing statement and we cannot divorce that reflection on the reality of today from the purpose and intent of this particular Bill. We must examine legislation since 1922, the codifying of our laws, how complicated access is for citizens and how the least well off in our society can properly avail of equal access and equal rights within and before the law.

While I acknowledge that we have come a long way in terms of human and civil rights since the laws to be repealed by this Bill were first enacted, the statement from FLAC only underscores the fact that we still have a long way to go.

Fianna Fáil's The Nation is very entertaining reading and I look forward to edition number three. I am happy to report that I will support the Bill.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004. It is refreshing to deal with a Bill that provides for the repeal of 219 Acts that predate the foundation of the State. It is an opportunity to reflect on legislation and assess our work as legislators in this House.

There is much cynicism about politicians, which is egged on by sections of our media that see us all as fair game. The reality is that the vast majority of the Members of the Dáil work long, hard hours and try to do our best as legislators. Most citizens know this and it is time for sections of the media to stop degrading our work and, more seriously, misleading our people on this important political issue. It makes my blood boil when I hear announcements on "Morning Ireland" to the effect that the Deputies are back after three months holidays when the people involved know we have been in our offices and constituencies during the summer. We need fair and balanced reporting and our citizens deserve to know the truth.

I raise this issue today while we are discussing the matter of laws in the country. Journalists and members of the media should never be embedded with political parties and should always retain their integrity and independence. Sadly, this is not the case in Ireland and all democrats in this House should be brave and stand up for openness and honest reporting. I address these comments to many of the political correspondents around the House as we need openness, honesty and integrity in journalism.

While I speak on this issue, I will mention the sad and tragic case of Mr. Rory Carroll, who was kidnapped in Iraq in the past 24 hours. On behalf of the Independent group, I wish to express my support for and solidarity with his family and I ask that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the personnel involved in the case do their best to ensure he is safely returned home to his family and friends. We can never allow a situation where someone reporting on a conflict is sucked into it and treated as part of the problem to continue. In the interests of human rights and an Irish citizen, I urge all people directly involved in the case to work very hard to seek his release.

This Bill provides for the repeal of 219 Acts that predate the foundation of the State, statutes enacted before 6 December 1922 that are no longer in force. The Bill deals only with the primary legislation from the years prior to our independence and its primary concern is the laws passed by a number of parliaments that had authority over Ireland for a period of eight centuries. When examining this aspect of the debate, we should reflect on and never forget that situation, nor should we forget the people who are in a similar situation in Northern Ireland. This island experienced significant oppression and injustice for a long time but many people in this House seem to want to bury their heads in the sand when trying to resolve the Northern Ireland conflict.

It may not be fashionable or politically correct but I will voice my support for Fr. Alec Reid due to his magnificent work in developing the peace process over recent years and reject the recent attacks on him. Regardless of his comments, he is a man of integrity, ability and peace. All sides directly involved in the peace process should recognise this and should not hang him out to dry after recent comments. The debate in the hall that night was fiery. We, like others, can lose our cool in such debates and situations. We should not be lectured by people who have records of sectarianism, namely, Mr. Ian Paisley Jnr. and Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson, who should look inside their own hearts. All sides of the conflict have performed disastrous and terrible acts and this recognition is the direction in which we should go if we are to discuss the peace process.

I mention this issue in today's debate because plans are being developed by the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that secondary legislation is also dealt with in due course. The general body of legislation enacted by the Parliament of the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was continued in force by Article 73 of the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann and Article 50 of the Constitution of Ireland. Pre-1922 legislation is still effective in Ireland and, therefore, spans as far back as 1200, which I did not realise until I began researching the matter.

The statutes covered by this Bill fall into a number of categories. There are Irish statutes passed before the union with Britain, which were laws passed by various parliaments sitting in Ireland between 1200 and 1800. These make for interesting reading and offer an opportunity to reflect on our history. This is an opportunity to stand up as an independent nation on the international stage, align ourselves with other former colonies around the world that have histories like ours and work for international peace and justice. There are English statutes passed before 1495, most of which were applied to Ireland by virtue of Poyning's Law in 1494, and English statutes passed between 1495 and 1707 that were also applied to Ireland.

This is an opportunity to challenge revisionists in this country, be they in academia, the media or this House, because we have a history of colonialism and being oppressed. We should not be ashamed to say this was the reality, even as it is the reality for many people living in Northern Ireland at present. We should not be afraid to stand up and defend the interests of the northern minority in particular. I was saddened in recent weeks when, after horrific sectarian attacks, the voices of most of the parties in this House were silent.

The fourth category of the Bill covers statutes that were passed by Westminster Parliament after the union of England and Scotland in 1707 but before the union of Britain and Ireland in 1800 and, finally, it covers Acts of the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that applied to Ireland and were passed after the Act of Union 1800 but before the establishment of Saorstát Éireann in 1922.

The Bill, which I will support, is intended to help streamline the Statute Book and forms part of the Government's overall commitment to better regulation and regulatory reform. Everyone in the House will support that commitment. Repealing outdated legislation ensures the Statute Book is kept up to date and provides for increased clarity and accessibility of primary legislation. This approach is in keeping with good practice on management of the regulatory framework.

I recently attended a celebration in Collins Barracks for soldiers who served with the United Nations. I wish to raise the case of Mr. Thomas Kenny and Mr. Joseph Fitzpatrick, the two Irish soldiers who survived the notorious Niemba massacre in the Congo in November 1960. Their case is important to citizens of this State and their commitment to international peace. I call on the Minister of State and the Government to give these men appropriate recognition. They were approximately 17 or 18 years of age at the time and ill-equipped to deal with a difficult conflict. Their role was not military, but peacekeeping. Out of the 11 members on patrol that day, only those two men survived the ambush, but they have horrific memories. It is important that people who served with the United Nations should be honoured and given appropriate recognition. I ask the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, to open his heart and act on behalf of Mr. Kenny and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

We need fair and just laws. It is important that laws have the respect of the people but these laws in turn must respect human rights. When we examine the history of legislation it is important that we reflect on the ethos of Wolfe Tone and his philosophy of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter. We should acknowledge and reflect on his great work and vision. I was interested to hear the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, pointing out to the House the difference between law reform and law revision, and I agree with him:

Law reform is concerned with the substantive nature of the law — it changes the effective rights and duties which apply in our society. Law revision does not change the substantive law — it merely sweeps away those laws which no longer have any substantive effect. It is the process of removing legislation that has lost any modern purpose from the Statute Book.

I welcome this debate as an opportunity to discuss our laws, defend most legislators who do a day's work for a day's pay and silence many of the cynics who speak against the legislators in this House who do a great deal of difficult work.

Fiona O'Malley (Dún Laoghaire, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment my constituency colleague, Deputy Gilmore, on his contribution. It is a delight to share a constituency with someone who will always inform and teach one about the legislation being discussed. We all learned from his thorough research on this Bill and the constructive contribution he made on how we might move forward having regard to the experience in the North of Ireland as it consolidated its laws. His contribution was particularly engaging.

It is a pleasure to speak on this historic document. Deputies referred to legislation from the time of the Magna Carta to the Act of Union that will no longer be included in the Irish Statute Book when this Bill is passed. This discussion provided Members with an opportunity to speak on many and varied subjects, not only on the Bill but on any other subject he or she felt the need to discuss.

Towards the end of this speech, Deputy Gilmore suggested the law consolidation unit in the Attorney General's office might not be well-enough resourced. However, it has demonstrated that it has managed admirably. Since the introduction of the Bill before which it had dealt with 90 Acts, it deals with 219 Acts. That shows the unit is adequately resourced, and demonstrates the thorough and good work it does. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, mentioned that further repeals might be necessary and that now is not the time to repeal certain laws. That also demonstrates the thoroughness of the task undertaken by the legislation revision unit. I welcome that.

A positive reflection on this Government is that in looking at the various Acts being dealt with by this Bill, we see that it is an historical document and we see how dynamic the process of law-making is. The Minister very generously furnished us with information on the detail of each of the laws. When one looks at the titles it causes us to think. Our primary task as parliamentarians is to legislate and draft law. We must be extremely careful of the transient nature of that law.

My point about the Constitution is that at least we have a written document. It reflects the era of its construction, 1930s Ireland. This and previous Governments have indicated that this is the case, that the Constitution should be under constant review. I welcome the fact that we have an Oireachtas committee that examines the Constitution and recognises the need for change within it. I find it an offensive document in terms of the status of women. I do not mind using that term. We have already commented on how one would not get away with using the traditional language found in old legislation. We must ensure that a document as important to us as is the Constitution does not cause offence. There is still a great deal of work to be done on regulatory reform.

I will not speak for long. I strongly support the Bill and appreciate Government's commitment to better regulation. This Bill considers Acts passed up to 1922 and it is understandable that it stops there because a broad remit exists between 1200 and 1922. I hope Acts passed in the years since 1922 will be considered in the future as we need to continue this process. It is important to make laws as easy to read and as uncomplicated as possible. The Minister of State made the point that if people are to be subject to the law they must reasonably be expected to have access to the law. One cannot get copies of some legislation to which we are still subject and that is not good enough.

I add the caveat that, as has been pointed out to many people, it is not a defence to argue unfamiliarity with the law. I applaud the work done by the section within the Attorney General's office. I look forward to see what other Bills will be repealed. I encourage the Government to keep this under active consideration. It is important to create laws relevant to people and the Statute Book contains such laws. For that reason, I hope we continue moving from 1922 to the current date.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies for their comments. It has been a constructive debate. I agree with the sentiments expressed that this work is important even though it will not rate headlines in the media. It is important for the law to be updated and that it is accessible. Again, I commend those who have been working diligently behind the scenes. It is important that this work is continued post-1922 as well. I commend this Bill to the House.