Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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

It is a pleasure to bring the Statute Law Revision Bill 2015 before the House this morning. As Deputies will be aware, the main effect of the Bill is to revoke all Government orders or other secondary instruments made prior to 1821, apart from a specific list of 40 instruments that are being preserved. The Bill expressly revokes 5,782 secondary instruments and implicitly repeals thousands of others. This makes it the largest ever repealing measure, by express repeals, in this jurisdiction or any other. The Bill is part of a broader series of measures which have been enacted since the establishment of the statute law revision programme 13 years ago. Further measures are planned by the Government to complete the review of this country's Statute Book.

As Members will recall, a number of previous statute law revision Bills have dealt with primary legislation, primarily Acts of Parliament from before Independence. This Bill now moves the process on to deal with secondary instruments such as proclamations and orders. The revocation proposals set out in the Bill were developed following a detailed research and consultation process. As part of an overall programme of statute law revision, the Bill will help to simplify and modernise our law and make it more intelligible. It will save time and costs for lawyers and others who need to know what the law actually is. To put it simply, it will make it easier for citizens to access justice. When the Bill is enacted, it will facilitate the process of regulatory reform; ensure the Statute Book is significantly more modern; enhance public accessibility to the Statute Book; facilitate future legislative measures to repeal, re-enact - with amendments, where necessary - and consolidate the statute law of the State; and enable, for the first time since the foundation of the State, the identification of a complete list of all legislation that remains in force here. I think it is a very sensible measure.

The details of the instruments revoked by this Bill give a fascinating historical insight into the regulatory environment of the period in question. The subject matter of the instruments varies from pardons for information received in relation to specific crimes to the imposition of quarantine requirements to prevent the spread of plague and orders for the summoning of the first Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. One of the earliest references in the Bill is to an order concerning the publication of the Magna Carta in 1215, which is a long time before the Acting Chairman was around.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Slightly.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As many Deputies will know, the Magna Carta is celebrating its 800th anniversary this year. It is of note that aspects of it and of the Irish Magna Carta of 1216 continue in force in Ireland today. In addition to revoking secondary instruments, the Bill amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1947 by removing the exemption of certain statutory instruments or classes of statutory instruments from publication. This will lead to greater transparency in our Statute Book.

Statute law revision concerns the removal of legislation from the Statute Book which is no longer relevant or the purpose of which is exhausted. The purpose of such revision is to enhance public accessibility to the Statute Book and pave the way for further modernisation measures. There is a particular need for such revision in Ireland because our unique legislative past has left us with a complex stock of legislation, with enactments from Parliaments of Ireland, England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Ireland’s pre-Independence statute law consists of primary legislation - public, local and personal, and private Acts of Parliament - and secondary legislation, such as Government proclamations and orders. Best practice in regulatory governance requires states to review their stock of legislation on a regular basis and to repeal and revoke legislation which is spent, unused, unnecessary or otherwise appropriate for removal from their statute books.

This Bill continues the important work of the statute law reform programme. This work is part of the 2011-16 programme for Government and is a specific element of the 2014-16 public service reform plan. The current programme of statute law revision was established in 2003 and has resulted in the Statute Law Revision Acts of 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2012. Collectively, these Acts have expressly or implicitly repealed approximately 95% of pre-Independence primary legislation. In 2012, the statute law revision programme transferred from the Office of the Attorney General to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The Statute Law Revision Act 2012 was enacted following the transfer of the programme to that Department. This completed the review of pre-Independence primary legislation.

In July 2013, the Government approved a second phase of statute law revision, including the drafting of this legislation to revoke secondary instruments. As the approval of the heads of this Bill predated the introduction of Order 123A, the general scheme of the Bill was not forwarded for pre-legislative scrutiny. However, a draft list of instruments and details of the Bill was published. The preparation of this Bill began in September 2013 with the chronological identification and assessment of numerous secondary instruments, such as orders, proclamations and similar instruments. There is no single source, or even index, of pre-Independence secondary instruments applicable to Ireland. As a result, a full review of items contained in The Dublin Gazette, The London Gazetteand certain other printed collections was carried out by the statute law revision programme. Secondary instruments identified following this review were examined to ascertain whether they were applicable to Ireland and suitable for revocation.

Forty instruments that were applicable to Ireland but are not suitable for repeal are listed in Schedule 1 for retention. A total of 5,782 instruments were identified as suitable for revocation and have been listed in Schedule 2. As with previous statute law revision legislation, the format of this Bill involves revoking all instruments coming within its ambit, except those listed in Schedule 1. However, Schedule 2 provides for information purposes a list of revoked instruments. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform engaged in a consultation exercise with other affected Departments in preparation for the introduction of this Bill. A draft list of instruments and details of the Bill was published on the website of the Department in September of last year. In addition, relevant bodies and organisations that could potentially be affected by proposed repeals continue to be made aware of the ongoing work of the statute law revision programme.

I wish to outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 is the interpretation section. I want to refer to one definition in particular. The word "instrument", which is a key term in the Bill, is defined to cover three categories of instrument. The first category covers any instrument that describes itself as "an order, regulation, rule, bye-law, scheme, or proclamation" if it was made under statutory, charter or executive or administrative authority or if it was published in The Dublin Gazetteor The London Gazette. The second category covers similar instruments irrespective of their descriptions but which are "of a regulatory, general or public nature" if such instruments were made under statutory, charter or executive or administrative authority or were published in The Dublin Gazetteor The London Gazette. This category will capture instruments that are akin to orders, regulations and rules but do not describe themselves as such. The definition specifically excludes charters and letters patent, because they will be the subject of a separate Bill in accordance with the Government decision of July 2013 to which I referred earlier. The third category covers instruments referred to in Schedule 2, which lists instruments that will be revoked by this Bill.

Section 2(1) is the central feature of this Bill. It provides for a fundamental clarification and simplification of the Statute Book by drawing a line at 1 January 1821 and revoking all instruments passed prior to that point except, as I have outlined, for instruments listed in Schedule 1.

11 o’clock

Schedule 1 contains the instruments which it is considered necessary to retain.

Section 2(2)(a) saves the instruments in Schedule 1. Section 2(2)(b) saves, for the avoidance of doubt, any transitional or continuing provision that applies to any instrument that has already been revoked prior to the present Bill. Section 2(4) provides a clear new power to revoke the instruments in Schedule 1, as in some cases the original power to revoke has ceased to apply, such as where the order was made under the prerogative, or has become unworkable.

Section 3(1) provides that for information purposes, Schedule 2 will list the instruments identified by the statute law revision programme as coming within the scope of the revocation by section 2. These are the specific instruments which were identified as being obsolete, unnecessary or as having ceased to be in force. Section 3(2) provides that an instrument being omitted from Schedule 2 does not imply that the instrument is saved. Section 3(3) provides that the inclusion of an instrument in Schedule 2 does not deem it to have been of full force and effect immediately prior to the Act.

Section 4 assigns citations to any instrument that is listed in Schedule 1. The section is based on section 4 of the Statute Law Revision Acts 2007 and 2009. However, unlike those Acts, there is no reference to existing citations as none of the instruments already had citations. Section 5 provides for a standard savings clause and is based on section 9(1) of the Statute Law Revision Act 2007 and section 6(1) of both the subsequent Acts.

Section 6 amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1947 to remove the ability to exempt statutory instruments from publication. Section 6(a)(i) inserts a new subsection 2A into the Act of 1947, to exempt instruments made under certain sections of the Defence Act 1954 and the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990 from the operation of the general application of the Act of 1947. Instruments made under those sections will not be affected by the amendments to the 1947 Act.

Section 6(a)(ii) repeals sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1947 and section 6(a)(iii) removes references to directions from section 2 of the Act of 1947, which is a consequential amendment. This will have the effect of removing the power, which has existed for nearly 70 years, to exempt instruments from normal publication. I hope the House will agree that this provision is a further important step towards transparency in our Statute Book.

Paragraph (b) of section 6 will delete the obligation of the stationery office to send hard copies of all instruments to the chambers of commerce. As all statutory instruments are now available online, the need to send out hard copies has significantly lessened and the removal of this provision will achieve savings and greater efficiency.

Section 7 provides for evidence of instruments and is based on section 8 of the 2007 Act. There are, however, a greater number of sources for the pre-1820 instruments. It also includes a number of abbreviations used in the Schedules. Section 8 provides for the powers in relation to evidence of early Acts to transfer from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. This reflects the transfer of the programme to the Department in 2012, to which I alluded earlier. Section 9 provides for a Short Title and collective citations, including a collective citation for the 36 previous Statute Law Revision Acts.

Schedule 1 lists the instruments to be retained. Each part of Schedule 1 lists the instruments which it is considered are not appropriate for revocation at this stage and are being retained in force specifically. The format of the Schedule is based on the Schedules to the Statute Law Revision Acts 2007, 2009 and 2012 with the addition of a new column 1 with a reference number and a new column 4 to identify the Minister conferred with a revocation power in respect of that instrument pursuant to section 2(5).

Schedule 2 lists the specific instruments identified in the course of the review as appropriate for revocation at this stage because they have ceased to be relevant or have become unnecessary. They will be instruments which, while applicable to Ireland, have been identified in the course of the review as appropriate for revocation because they are spent, obsolete or have otherwise become unnecessary, and where no existing revocation has been identified at this stage of the research. They are not saved by the saver in section 2 and thus will cease to be in force following enactment of this Bill. Other instruments that do not relate to Ireland or have only a tenuous connection with Ireland will not be included in Schedule 2 but will be revoked by virtue of the general revocation in section 2.

Having regard to the volume of legislation involved and the careful analysis given to each instrument, it is clear that this Bill is the culmination of a significant programme of work. Indeed, over a 13-year period the Statute Law Revision programme has produced five Bills and completed a meticulous examination of 60,000 Acts of Parliament and many thousand secondary instruments. It has required meticulous research which has underpinned further modernisation and accessibility measures. It enables the Law Reform Commission to make available electronically the majority of Acts that were retained by the Statute Law Revision Act 2007. For the first time, most of the pre-1922 public general Acts that remain in force are now available electronically. In addition, the statute law revision programme has provided assistance to other Departments in relation to the repeal and re-enactment in modern form of pre-1922 Acts in some subsequent sector-specific legislation. The project staff also received texts of legal instruments and valuable assistance and co-operation from the Oireachtas Library and the National Library. I wish to express my gratitude to those institutions for their continued support and assistance.

This Bill is somewhat technical in nature, requiring a detailed outline of its provisions, but all of us in this House and in the other House, as custodians of the Irish Statute Book, have a duty to ensure the book is modernised and that unnecessary or obsolete elements are removed to make it accessible and transparent and to enable the public to interact with the laws of their land as they go about their business. The Bill we are debating on Second Stage today is a significant step on a journey which has been taking place for the past 13 years. I look forward to the debate in this and the other House and to the subsequent passage of the Bill.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the introduction of the Statute Law Revision Bill 2015. I commend the staff who worked on the Bill because, undoubtedly, much research is involved in going back through the Statute Book and assessing what needs to be included and what needs to be revoked. It is a fine piece of work which will be welcomed by many who have to work with the Statute Book on a daily basis.

The purpose of the Bill is to clarify and simplify the Irish Statute Book and it will make it easier for people to locate statutes and ascertain relevant laws. It follows on from the recent Statute Law Revision Acts 2005 to 2012, which have already repealed thousands of obsolete pre-1922 laws and statutes. Statute law revision was a stated aim of the programme for Government and it is good to see that work is continuing in this regard.

This Bill achieves its aim by revoking statutory instruments passed prior to 1821 and which no longer have a purpose or relevance in our modern legal system. It includes a total of 5,708 instruments that have been identified as suitable for revocation. It provides a comprehensive list of those statutory instruments in Schedule 1 which were passed prior to 1821 and which will continue to have force after this Bill has been passed by the Houses. There are some 40 instruments which have been identified as requiring to be retained.

It amends the Statutory Instruments Act 1947 to remove an exemption from publication of a number of statutory instruments or classes of statutory instrument. Overall, the Bill deals with statutes from May 1660 to November 1820 and includes instruments from the following legislative sources: Irish instruments from 1169 to 1800; instruments of England from 1066 to 1707; instruments of Great Britain from 1707 to 1800; instruments of the British Government in Ireland 1801-1820; and United Kingdom instruments 1801-1820. The Bill should have a minimal impact on our legislation but it will no doubt have a welcome impact on those who actually work in the profession and citizens generally who seek to understand and navigate Irish law.

Some of the instruments being revoked by the Bill give a flavour of our history. They include declarations of war, to which the Minister of State referred, against Denmark in 1666 and against France in 1744 and a proclamation of 1817 reserving oatmeal and potatoes for consumption by the lower orders of people.

Another example is a proclamation of 1661 prohibiting drunkenness, cursing, swearing and profaning on the Lord's day - it is not so bad if it happens during the rest of the week. A proclamation of 1676 concerns the hearing of claims of persons transplanted to Connacht and County Clare. A proclamation of 1665 appoints the first Wednesday of every month as a day of fasting and humiliation on account of the bubonic plague in London. A number of instruments impose restrictions on Catholics. For example, a proclamation of 1679 promises a reward for the apprehension of any Popish dignitary or Jesuit. There is an order of the same date for the suppression of mass houses. There is much there and one would glean much from our history by looking in detail at many of the statutory instruments being revoked by this Bill.

Our party will support this Bill as it proceeds through the House. Again, I offer our commendations and recognition to the staff who have worked diligently in bringing this Bill to fruition in the Dáil today.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom cur leis an bhfáilte atá curtha roimh an mBille seo. Labhair mé cheana féin ar roinnt de na Billí eile a cuireadh chun cinn roimhe seo. Measaim gur maith an rud é go bhfuilimid ag bogadh ar aghaidh go tapaidh, sa deireadh thiar thall, maidir le fáil réidh le hAchtanna, forógraí agus dlíthe nach mbaineann leis an Stát seo in aon bealach in aon chor. Ní chóir go mbeadh baint acu leis an Stát seo ó bunaíodh é, ar a laghad.

It is welcome that we are continuing the progress made of late to once and for all create an Irish Statute Book that is relevant, modern and accessible. One of my interests is history and we will return to that when I go into the details of the Bill itself. The job that has been done should have been done or begun in 1922 when the State was founded or, at the very least, when the State became a republic. It involves setting aside the laws, proclamations and statutory instruments that belong to another time. We are in that process at last. I understand the complications and that the Government cannot change legislation that has an impact overnight, for example, that relating to currencies and a range of other issues relating to property and title. However, we have grown up as a State to the point where it is appropriate that proclamations and statutory instruments cannot masquerade as law. They are not law. They are not live, have no relevance and are confined to history.

One advantage of this Bill is that it will create a Statute Book and associated instruments that can be accessible to the citizen given that we have the Internet. The idea is that the citizen is supposed to know what laws govern them. If one looks at some of these statutory instruments, one can see that they were proclamations of a different era where much of the public was not aware of the laws being created in Westminster and College Green on occasions. Most of these were not read by the Irish population in any shape or form and many of them were written in a language that was alien to them not just because they were not written as Gaeilge, but because the language in them was not accessible. It was an English vernacular that was not the vernacular of the Irish people. This echoes some of our criticism today about legislation, which is that it is not available in plain English. It is hoped that once we have finished with this, we can then start at the beginning and see whether we can address how inaccessible some of our legislation is to the public.

I have criticised the fact that legislation and explanatory memoranda are not available in the Irish language. Even this Bill is not available in the Irish language. This legislation is quite detailed. A promise was made by the Tánaiste to produce explanatory memoranda as Gaeilge. If this had been done, other Deputies and I would have found it easier to debate this as Gaeilge.

My other main criticism of this concerns the use of JobBridge. I argued with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform about this in respect of a previous Bill. I know the defence the Minister made but if there is a job to be done, it should be a paid job. Using JobBridge was wrong in this project even if it enabled participants to gain experience because it is not a long-term job. Funding should have been made available to ensure that those who were qualified received the rate commensurate with the job. It is a very difficult and onerous job.

We must take it on trust that all of the instruments, or as many of them as could be found, are contained in this Bill. We might come back in ten years time to find that somebody has discovered a few thousand bits and pieces. I do not think this will happen because I have met some of those involved in the project and they were enthusiastic and went beyond the call of duty on occasions to find the original manuscripts. I presume all of the legislation that is now being repealed is somewhere in the Department. It would be a very interesting and useful tool for current and future historians if all that revoked legislation was available in one source document. The repealed Irish Statute Book might be an interesting name for it.

As the Minister of State, others and some commentators in the media have said, some of this legislation is amazing. It bears no relationship to the current day or at least to the way our society is run. I remember one piece of legislation that stated that in order to get a divorce, a person had to get legislation passed in Parliament. It is not relevant to this Parliament. I find it strange that we still keep 40 instruments, one or two of which might have a logic to them. In a republic, I am not one for titles, pomp and ceremony. Citizens are supposed to be equal. Quite a number of the 40 instruments concern the transfer of names, basically titles, to allow succession. At this stage, I believe most of them are irrelevant but they are interesting. Perhaps the Minister of State can explain why we are retaining the 40 instruments because there are very few that deal with anything else. I presume the instrument concerning the Bank of Ireland was the order setting it up. Given that it was in 1624, I do not see the relevance of the proclamation concerning ambassadors and foreign Ministers.

Perhaps on Committee Stage the Minister of State will have time to elaborate further on each of them. The others are of interest only because they are being revoked. I would not want any of them to be retained, in particular those in which, as a historian, I have an interest in so far as they deal with the Penal Laws and the manner in which the British in particular sought to culturally annihilate the Irish people. They are quite specific. Most people presume that the Penal Laws relate to the early 18th century. However, it is evident from the proclamations dealt with in this Bill they date back to the 16th century and are specifically targeted, on a religious basis, at papists. Anybody who had the gall to rise up against them had their land confiscated. A series of these proclamations were made in the 1560s in relation to Shane O'Neill. As I said earlier, these are of historical interest. It is hoped they will be available in one source online.

Before I stray too deeply into historical matters, I would like to address the change being made to section 6, which is logical, to remove the obligation on the State to provide the Chambers of Commerce etc. with the legislation. The list in this regard includes the National Library of Ireland, the Law Library, the King's Inn Library, the Law Society of Ireland, the Southern Law Association, which I presume is the confederates in Cork - I do not understand the difference: perhaps a Cork man can explain to me why they stand out from the rest - and the Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford Chambers of Commerce. We have moved on from this. If I were to make any suggestion, it would be that some of the universities should be included in that list. Everything is now available online. This is a recognition that within hours of legislation being passed, and even prior to it being passed, it is available online to students and practitioners of law. For this reason the proposed change is appropriate.

There is one particular issue of concern to me. The derogation in relation to the Defence Act is to be retained. I have not researched in detail the reason this derogation is to remain separate. Why does this apply only to the Defence Forces and not the Garda Síochána? Is there a particular reason for this such as, say, the secrecy of declarations of war and so on? I do not understand why statutory instruments related to the Defence Forces would be subject to greater secrecy than statutory instruments related to operational matters of An Garda Síochána. Given where we are as a society today, this strikes me as interesting.

This is dream legislation to any historian. Once one delves into it one finds interesting nuggets. Even though in many instances all one now gets is the new citations, these are welcome because some of the proclamations had no citations and would not have been accessible. We now have citations relating to proclamations on phrases such as "To Hell or to Connaught", which most people presume relates to the movement of people out of Dublin and Leinster and into Connemara. However, the "To Hell...." part of the phrase is interesting. There is a declaration abolishing transplantation to the West Indies. The West Indies was "Hell". Montserrat is in the West Indies. It was almost destroyed by a volcano a number of years ago. In terms of the phrase "To Hell or to Connaught", those who were not willing to go to Connaught were put in boats as slaves and sent to the plantations in the West Indies. The declaration I referred to earlier ended that practice. There are other declarations that refer to the offering of a reward of £5 for the discovery and punishment of Jesuits and seminary priests. There is a declaration setting out the means for conversion of the Irish and the elimination of the Irish language. These proclamations, we were taught in school, formed part of the Penal Laws. However, they did not. The Penal Laws followed. These are the laws that applied prior to some of the harshest Penal Laws. There is a period of 100 years when different groups of laws applied. These are more to do with Oliver Cromwell's time. The number of them introduced in 1655 in particular is interesting. There are others which are not necessarily interesting in terms of national history but would be interesting to local historians. For example, there is a proclamation which banned the use of a well in Rathfarnham. No. 126 on the list is a proclamation inhibiting resorting to the well near Rathfarnham upon pain of death. It would be interesting to know if that was because the well was poisoned or if it was because the well was to be exclusively retained by the landlord there. That is perhaps a job of work for a local historian. Perhaps we will see something related to that inHistory Irelandin the future.

There is also a proclamation banning Easter because of drunkenness and debauchery and so on. It is not only in recent times that there has been drunkenness around religious festivals such as St. Patrick's Day and so on. Back in the 1560s the Irish were enjoying themselves and those who were in charge, many of whom were puritanical, did not take too kindly the celebration of religious feasts, particularly religious feasts that cut across some of their declarations. In terms of Leinster House, in 1798 a proclamation was issued promising a reward for the discovery of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, who was wanted for high treason. Leinster House was raided by the Red Coats because his brother was the owner of this building and its surrounding land. However, this proclamation is now being repealed. I do not think anybody ever claimed that reward.

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

There are a couple of Red Coats around here yet.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are.

As I said, I welcome this legislation. I wish the team well for the future in terms of the work that remains to be done, as set out earlier by the Minister of State, in relation to the drafting of three or four more Bills dealing with this issue, although they will not be as detailed or as lengthy as this one. One of the Bills to follow will deal with the post-1920 period, information on which is hopefully more accessible. It should be remembered, however, that some records for this period have been lost or were never filed properly. In terms of records pre-1922 the burning of the Custom House and the attack on the Four Courts during the Civil War led to the destruction of many of them. Many supplementary documents were lost. In some cases, we will never have complete documents.

However, once this project is finished, we have a job to do to make our legislation accessible, by using easy to understand language. Not only should we have all statute law in one place but perhaps we should have all explanatory memoranda in the same place so that people can at least gain some insight into some of the complicated language involved.

The more we consolidate Acts, the easier it will be for practitioners, whether in this House or in the courts, to argue cases. The consolidated Bill on the sale of alcohol is due, as is the consolidated Bill on social welfare. The work is done bit by bit and it will make it easier in that one will not be jumping from one piece of legislation to another. At least now we can discount everything, bar the 40 instruments included in this legislation and those in the three or four previous Statute Law Revision Acts.

I might have questions on Committee Stage, mainly relating to what is left and what is being retained. I also mentioned the Defence Forces and the organisations which receive legislation when published, as a right. I do not know how much detail the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, received in this regard. I hope he did not get too much because several thousand pieces of secondary legislation are referred to in this Bill. Giving citations to each of them is useful and that can be done in a short period of time.

I thank the Minister of State and previous Ministers who have undertaken this work and wish the part of the Department which has undertaken it well. I hope we will see the next Bill as soon as possible so that the work is completed and we can move on to other work, although as a historian, I love to delve into this. There are months, if not years, of work there for local and national historians if it is all online in the future.

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

I thank the Acting Chairman, Deputy Durkan, for the opportunity to speak on the Statute Law Revision Bill 2015. I welcome this debate as I see it as part of the reform agenda. I will support anything to do with genuine reform and change, as Irish politics needs an urgent shot in the arm. Fresh, new and radical thinking is urgently needed in a rapidly changing world. However, we need to get on with this reform and this Bill is part of that process.

The Statute Law Revision Bill 2015 continues the recent process of cleaning up the Statute Book. It also revokes legislation which no longer has purpose or relevance in the modern Irish legal system. Again, this is part of the reform agenda. Specifically, the Bill addresses secondary instruments and provides a comprehensive list of secondary instruments from the period covered which continue to have force after the passing of the Bill. This Bill will also revoke all remaining obsolete secondary instruments passed prior to 1821.

The Bill deals specifically with Irish instruments from 1169 to 1800; instruments of England from 1066 to 1707; instruments of Great Britain from 1707 to 1800; instruments of the British Government in Ireland from 1801 to 1820; and United Kingdom instruments from 1801 to 1820. It involves a lot detail and covers a lot of legislation and a lot of history and it is important we reflect on these issues in this debate.

When one zooms in on the sections dealing with period from 1661 to 1820, very interesting issues arise - for example, the varied instruments regarding the status of Catholics, including a 1661 proclamation "requiring innocent Catholics to put in their claims to be restored to their lands", a proclamation "suppressing unlawful assemblies of Catholics and dissenters" and a proclamation "declaring the King's Letter permitting Roman Catholics to live and trade in towns". There are also instruments relating to expulsion of priests, suppression of institutions, surrender of arms and limitations on travel and where to live. That gives one an indication of what was going on historically in the country. When one looks at this now in the cold light of day, one thinks of the discrimination and second-class citizenship that existed in our State. That is why we have to be conscious when talking about building a modern new Ireland and a new Republic of these times when Catholics were discriminated against and treated as second-class citizens. In the current debate on marriage equality, we should reflect on that argument as well. If one believes in a modern inclusive Ireland and a democratic Republic, one must ensure that all citizens are treated equally and marriage equality is part of that agenda and it is important we say so. If we do not learn from history, from where do we learn?

The Minister of State, Deputy Harris, will like the following. There are numerous instruments regarding the collection and payment of customs, excise and taxes, along with regulation of imports. These include instruments providing certain exemptions. One such example from 1778 is a proclamation promising a pardon to persons guilty of customs offences who voluntarily joined the Royal Navy - in other words, if a person dodged his taxes but joined the Royal Navy, went off to war to kill somebody or die for somebody, he would get a tax amnesty. That is the kind of thing we are learning. I hope the Minister of State is not getting any ideas for those who do not pay their taxes or maybe people protesting about the water charges.

I note the reference to the Royal Navy and the emphasis on militarisation. It is also relevant to the protest yesterday by my colleague, Deputy Clare Daly, in that international peace activists must be respected and given maximum support because they are doing us a great service. If it happened in 1778, there might have been a different reaction from the so-called forces of law and order. When dealing with this legislation, it is important to be conscious of militarisation at the time. There are numerous instruments relating to the armed forces and conflicts, some of which are diplomatic and militaristic, both national and international, which are important.

Another interesting instrument is that in 1678 a proclamation ordered "that taverns, tippling houses and tobacco shops be removed from the vaults and cellars of Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin". Even in 1678, the poor smokers were getting a hard time.

In December 1757, a proclamation was published in the Dublin Gazette"from the Lord Mayor providing that the peace and good order of the city be preserved during the Christmas holidays." I hope people are listening to that today as it is relevant to the anti-social behaviour debate in this country.

In the Bill there are sections highlighting the oatmeal and potatoes order of 1817, which was introduced during the economic depression following the Napoleonic Wars to ease price inflation. Anyone not in the lower classes was ordered to desist from eating them or feeding them to horses, especially horses for pleasure. That was in 1817. Again, this was a reflection of the time and the attitude towards poorer and more vulnerable sections of society.

The bottom line is that overall this legislation is important. I gather from the Minister of State that the good news, from a financial point of view, is that there are no extra Exchequer costs. In fact, certain implications could produce savings in legal and business costs overall, and that is positive. I know that as a numbers-and-figures man the Minister of State will be delighted with that. I welcome the broader debate and the fact that we are trying to deal with this issue. We are cleaning up the Statute Book and that is a positive development.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State will be delighted to learn that I will not be taking my full time in this slot. Without disrespecting anyone involved in the process, it has been said by someone in my office that this legislation is a bit like a mega-snoozefest. That is not to be disrespectful. It is titillating and amusing to look back at some of these old statutes and laugh at how things used to be done and so on. Obviously, no one is going to object to having them tidied up. However, it is somewhat ironic and it sums up in many ways the irrelevance of this Parliament and how out of touch it is that we are giving time to discuss this now. Undoubtedly, the Dáil will close early today. There will not be too many people speaking on this because, really, what can one say about it? At the same time, the attention of the nation is engaged with the sale of Siteserv and the controversy around that. We really should be given time to discuss that instead. While I am delighted that there is a row between the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and his former colleague, Mr. Dukes - it is nice to see that coming to the surface - we should really be using time in the House to discuss these issues rather than anything else. There is a certain irony in that situation.

We have before us a Bill in which 5,702 instruments are being revoked. All of these are secondary instruments and include the likes of a proclamation giving currency to new pieces of silver money or a proclamation providing for the election of a new Scottish peer and so on. It is grand that they are all being tidied up and scrubbed. The more interesting elements are the ones being retained. The vast majority of these relate to names and coats of arms, such as the licence to William Burton to use the surname and arms of Conyngham. We wonder what is so important about William Burton's relatives and why they get to carry the name and arms of Conyngham. Perhaps the Minister of State can enlighten us on that later on.

For me the more important matter is the retention of the historic statute in Irish law that is a proclamation against illegal warrants by some sheriffs and justices of the peace which omit to name the persons against whom they are granted. We are to retain that, and I do not have a problem with that - in fact, I am pleased - but it is a sad irony that we are maintaining that proclamation in the same week in which the Supreme Court gave a judgment on the State's application to allow evidence gathered in a way that breaches an individual's constitutional rights, and that such evidence would be admissible in court. The State's case hinged around a warrant which had been obtained by unconstitutional means. The original trial judge said that she could not consider any evidence obtained under that search warrant because the warrant had breached the defendant's constitutional rights, and correctly so. The State wanted a conviction and, therefore, went to the Supreme Court to seek a change in the law in order that the individual could be retried and convicted. The State got the law changed in what the Supreme Court judge Mr. Justice Adrian Hardiman described in his dissenting judgment as an abhorrence that is unique in the entire world. I agree with him. This is an incredibly serious development. The statute that we are voting to retain, relating to sheriffs not being allowed to issue illegal warrants, is being contradicted by the Supreme Court, which is allowing the Garda to get evidence by unlawful means and to use it against citizens. It is an incredible situation. We should really be discussing these issues in the House, because this is real live Irish law that could have real implications on the lives of Irish citizens today. Mr. Justice Hardiman described the result as one achieved through gamesmanship of the worst and most cynical kind by the State.

There is a contradiction here because, at a time when we are talking about Garda reform and the need for gardaí to adhere to the best international practice, to dot i's and cross t's and to be human rights complaint and so on, the Supreme Court is saying that a garda can obtain evidence and then say she did not know that when she was getting it she was doing so by unlawful means and, further, that breaching somebody else's constitutional rights and pleading ignorance is allowable. In fact, ignorance is being rewarded in this instance. This is a grave development and, in that sense, I am keen to use this time to put on the record the seriousness of this issue. I am keen to highlight the fact that there is an irony in retaining the statute on the sheriffs and their illegal warrants, which was one of only 40, out of approximately 6,000, that are not being revoked. Yet at the same time the State is ensuring that rules can be broken.

It is also a little ironic that we are allowing time for what are in effect dead elements of statute that will never be invoked, while not allowing time for real, living, important issues such as the repeal of the eighth amendment of the Constitution. These are the real issues that we need to address and engage with the population on, rather than legislation which is in effect dead. Of course it needs to be tidied up, and I salute the efforts of people who are involved in the project. It is a worthy historical project, but it is not worthy of our time in this House when there are so many vital issues that the Government is ignoring and not allowing time for in the House.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Acting Chairman for giving me the opportunity of speaking briefly on the Statute Law Revision Bill. I welcome and acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Harris.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have 30 minutes. There is no shortage of time.

Derek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I promise you that on this occasion I will not take up 30 minutes. This Bill comes as a result of a number of years of painstaking work. I am keen to take the opportunity to commend the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on the extensive and far-reaching body of research into statutes and proclamations that remain in effect and are required to be revoked. These instruments cover hundreds of years of our history and a broad range of subject matter. Even the most cursory reading of the Bill reflects our past in all its richness and in its darkest times. It reflects a time when there was a monarch, a parliament that voted itself out of existence, a Europe in turmoil, a country in turmoil and armies raised to fight foreign wars on behalf of a foreign king. There were rewards on the heads of criminals and patriots alike. There were offers of pardon to encourage informers to come forward as a means of imposing given views of justice on Ireland. All of the history of the English monarchy as it affected Ireland is contained within the Bill. It is reflected in statutes, proclamations and treaties, in wars and instruments to celebrate accessions, births, deaths and marriages of monarchs as well as to mourn their passing. I do not believe there is anyone in Ireland who at this point in our history mourns the passing of foreign monarchy. There was a parliament that represented an elite class who, through the Penal Laws, made the biggest land grab in our history.

This land grab was done to break the Irish people and to take from them their birthright and historic lands. These lands were granted by the English monarchy to the very agents who engaged in wars here, in Great Britain and on the Continent in the service of the crown. The Irish people paid the price for these wars. Thus, the Home Rule movement, the rack-rent and the absentee landlord emerged as features of our history which took centuries to unwind. The Parliament was unrepresentative, undemocratic and, indeed, voted itself out of existence to facilitate the Act of Union in 1800.

The instruments being revoked by this Bill contain the mundane day-to-day administration of Government which echoes the economic circumstances, the structure of the administration and how this was progressed. One can see duties being imposed on imports, bans on imports, restrictions on sea traffic and isolation of vessels.

As it seems I have left some of my speech behind on my desk, I will conclude. It is clearly time that we revoked many of these instruments. I noted from the earlier comments of Members on all sides of the House that there is a warm welcome for all aspects of the Bill. I anticipate and hope it will get safe passage through the Houses, and I look forward to that in time.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.