Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

Yes, even 15 years ago, in the Minister of State's experience. Whenever a Minister announces an initiative at a press conference a new Bill seems to be part of the package. That is not a good thing. We should minimise the amount of legislation that comes before these Houses and spend more time on it to ensure it can be implemented and is up to speed.

I pay tribute to the staff in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel who have, under great pressure, done an excellent job for all Governments over many years. I suspect the office suffers a lack of resources and we must support it and ensure the best talent in the country is there to help those of us who must make decisions about the law and implement them. I congratulate them on their work on this and other issues.

A White Paper on regulation, Regulating Better, some of whose proposals should be reflected in this Bill, was published recently. For example, the Minister of State might give active consideration to the need for consistency in law. A small issue that crops up frequently on this side concerns commencement orders, which usually refer to sections 2 or 3 of the Bill. What is the official position in terms of a commencement order? For example, in one Bill one finds the phrase "This Act comes into operation" but in another the phrase is "This Act shall come into operation" on such and such a day. Which is correct? We must have consistency in all the Bills that come before this and the other House. The official position that comes from the Law Reform Commission and others is that the active voice is the correct interpretation. If so, why do other formulations continue to appear in other Bills? We need to proof these.

We also need clarification on section 6 of this Bill which I do not understand:

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, which have occurred since the date of the passing of the Act or the making of the statutory instrument, but only in so far as its text, purpose and context permit.

Does this give significant power to judges to reinterpret Acts that have passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas? It is a dangerous precedent to allow people to make that distinction and, in effect, create a new body of law in their courts. I am sure my elementary understanding will be greatly helped by the Minister and his staff as we continue through the Bill.

Electronic versions of the Acts are also a serious problem. In a court of law where reference is made to an Act of the Oireachtas, one must present the hard copy of the Act in the courtroom. Am I right in saying that electronic versions are not regarded as the complete version of an Act in our court system? If, in this technological age, we are trying to encourage e-government we should regard all Acts in electronic format in the same way as the hard copy. This would help the operation of the courts and is the case already at tribunals of inquiry and at committees of these Houses. It was particularly helpful during the DIRT Inquiry because when our colleagues referred to various Acts or other important documents, these would come up on a screen. Does the electronic version have the same standing in a courtroom as the hard copy? Why are we not providing for this in the context of section 7 where reference is made to the authentic version?

With regard to section 10, I am informed that the OECD and the recent White Paper, Regulating Better, have advocated that a review mechanism should be included in all primary legislation. There are two ways of doing this; either we review the legislation and make a commitment by way of a section or include a sunset provision to the effect that the Act will no longer apply after 50 years in operation. This would be a good thing, because, as legislators, we often respond to new developments in society that only have an impact for five, ten or 20 years. Outdated legislation with no regard to modern society still continues to be enforced. Has the Government given consideration to this recommendation, which I understand has come from the White Paper on regulation and the OECD, in regard to putting a review mechanism into primary legislation that comes before the Oireachtas? That would be a useful thing because it would remind us all of the impact of proposed legislation over a specified period of time after which, if necessary, it could be reintroduced. Such a provision already exists in regard to the Offences Against the State Act. It includes a time provision to the effect that each House of the Oireachtas must renew support for the legislation for it to remain in effect. It is done in the case of emergency powers being put in place, but it would also be a worthwhile provision in all legislation.

Section 11 provides for the use of examples. This is good because legislation would be greatly helped by concrete examples of how it should be used. Not only would it make it easier for everyone to understand, but it would also give legislators a greater comprehension of Bills coming before them. The Parliamentary Counsel's office should be ruthless in ensuring examples are provided and that Departments produce legislation that show concrete examples that would be of help to the lay person.

Legislation needs to be set out in the plainest language possible so that every citizen can understand what the Houses of the Oireachtas are implementing in each case. I am aware that equality proofing is carried out on Bills in the Parliamentary Counsel's office. There has been a proposal that Bills should be poverty-proofed. We also need to introduce plain language proofing, so as to allow everyone to comprehend legislation passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

We support the Bill and will work with the Minister on it on Committee Stage. The detail of the Bill is of the utmost importance in terms of interpretation by justices of the Bench. We should spend adequate time on it, as was the case in the other House. I am sure the experienced Members of this House, who include former Ministers and people of vast experience of parliamentary encounters, would greatly help the Bill by way of scrutiny on Committee Stage.