Results 1,961-1,980 of 6,030 for speaker:Brendan Ryan

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: It is a good start to the afternoon. We could make much progress here.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: The definitions in section 2 make no reference to legislation of the European Union, which is referred to in section 28. According to the proposed amendments section 28 is opposed. It also is marked with an asterisk, but I am not sure whether that is a misprint or it is the Government that opposes the section. Surely we cannot put through an interpretation Bill without reference to European...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: Before I was born.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: I probably should not have spent as much time this morning reading this Bill as I did. I have a problem with regard to the word "absurd" in section 3(2)(b)(ii) in the phrase "the other enactment would be changed in intent or become unclear or absurd". I have no problem with "changed in intent" or "become unclear", but "absurd" is an extraordinarily subjective word. I am not trying to be...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: There goes coalition. We will discuss that later. My point is that the word "absurd" is an extraordinary one for draftsmen to use. I meant to look the word up in the dictionary earlier.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: They are in lines 14 and 25 of page 6 of the Bill. I am not trying to be awkward, but I think "absurd" is an extraordinary word to include in legislation.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: That is fair enough. If it is the case that such language is part of the parlance of the courts, that is fine and I am happy to accept it.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: There is a need for an official in the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to learn to write intelligible English. It takes one approximately five readings to ascertain what certain parts of this Bill mean. I do not blame the Minister of State for that.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: It is absurd for the Attorney General to be worried about the sunset of legislation, given that there is an amendment to the Bill which is precisely intended to deal with marginal or shoulder notes. It states that none of the following shall be taken to be part of the enactment. I am not sure why the Attorney General was worrying about marginal notes when there is an amendment stating that...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: No, the rainbow Government was in power. That was one of our big mistakes. I would not be in favour of this amendment. However, the Oireachtas should set up a process of continuous revision of statute law. It would be useful to have a committee of the Oireachtas to examine statute law and also to respond to the Law Reform Commission's occasional submissions on legislation that is defunct. I...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: I am intrigued that the Interpretation Bill 2000 is going to be one of the most difficult pieces of legislation to interpret. Something is seriously wrong and I do not know what it is. Section 6 is a fine example. It intends to be a catch-all to prevent people having to brandish their spears to prove they are entitled to enter the Houses of the Oireachtas, or something like that from the 14th...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: Their lordships just want us to write the law so they can slap it down.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: Section 7 begins: "In construing a provision of an Act for the purposes of section 5 or 6,". Section 6 states "a court may make allowances for any changes in the law, social conditions, technology, the meaning of words" etc. and section 5 deals with construing ambiguous or obscure provisions. It surprises me that a court may make use of many things as reference points for interpreting...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: No, it does not clarify anything. Section 6 states, "In construing a provision of any Act or statutory instrument, a court may make allowances for any changes in the law, social conditions, technology, the meaning of words used in an Act or statutory instrument and other relevant matters...". How would it not help to clarify what was meant by the words at the time the legislation was passed?...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: I will table an amendment on Report Stage. If the Minister of State says he will interpret this amendment elsewhere, even in the Dáil, I will be happy. However, a reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas should not be excluded from the section.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: The sections states "the court may make use of all matters...". I am concerned that by outlining what the court may do, the Minister of State is also stating what it may not do. If it does not mean the courts are prevented from doing other things, the section is unnecessary but if it means they are prevented from doing other things, then the section is outlining only what they may do. The...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: As I sit here, I feel I could return to the time of Gutenberg's invention of the printing press, when people said something was not authentic unless it was handwritten and that printers were an untrustworthy idea. The machines could produce many documents. People asked how they could possibly be secure if they did not have a handwritten inscribed document. I am certain this is what they said...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Brendan Ryan: I should be able to examine every single Act. Any Member who cannot handle the technology should learn how to do so on a special course.