Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern. I wish to pick up on what the leader of the Opposition, Senator Brian Hayes, said. I noticed there was no mad rush of enthusiasm for the Bill which was drawn up in 2000. I think it was first dealt with in 2001 and I understand why it appears to have been going around the Houses for a while.

Although I guided 18 Bills through the Houses of the Oireachtas in the five years I spent in the Department of Public Enterprise, I do not understand the Interpretation Bill. I cannot understand what it is interpreting or what it is setting out to do. The Minister did his best in his commendably short speech — there is no point going on about it. I do not mean to insult or castigate those who put it together or the officials present, but it is most obscure legislation.

I noted at the end of the Minister of State's speech there was a reference to the fact that a new explanatory memorandum would be produced six months after the enactment of the Bill. The main purpose of the Interpretation Bill is to give greater clarity of expression to former Interpretation Acts. It includes references to 19th century legislation but excludes the 1997 Act, which is a standalone Act. Perhaps I am not taking the correct meaning from it, but I cannot quite understand what it is all about. I downloaded the contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, on the Bill in the Dáil. It was lengthier than that of the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, but that did not make it better or worse. That is not the point; it was very worthy. Apart from the Minister of State's speech there was a contribution from party spokespersons. I think everyone else ran out. I could not understand anything that was said about the Bill and I do not think anybody else could either. I will just have to accept that its purpose is to bring about clarity in better and plainer English and provide for a greater level of understanding to what we often term, the ordinary person in the street. If one went to Grafton Street or O'Connell Street and explained to people that the Interpretation Bill would make legislation plainer and asked a person to spend an hour reading it, I would think he or she would give up after 20 minutes.

I wish to refer to the business of law making and the role of the Parliamentary Counsel's office. I am not speaking in ignorance, as I have guided many Bills through the Oireachtas over the years. I often thought the purpose of legislation was to make the understanding of it as difficult as possible so that legislators in both Houses of the Oireachtas would not have a chance of putting their imprint on the Bill.

Legislation is about people. I do not refer to this Bill in particular, but to legislation in general. Laws that are enacted have an effect on everybody in some way or other, or an effect on certain groups within society. Their aim is, I hope, to improve the lot of people or to clear up some loopholes in earlier legislation. Legislation is fertile ground for solicitors, barristers and other practitioners of the law. They are all worthy people and I do not have any gripe with them. I do not share the common disregard for those who go about that business.

Those in the office of the Parliamentary Counsel who put together legislation must observe previous legislation and the likely consequences of particular measures. However, the language used, such as "whereas", "wherefore", "whereto", "hereunder" and "hereafter" is arcane and has no relevance to ordinary people. Those involved in drafting legislation may like to think they are in an elitist category. When television monitors were introduced throughout the Houses of the Oireachtas, I often had the impression that such people had many a wry laugh at how far removed we were from their notion of what lawmakers should be.

If one reads the debates of both Houses, one will see that what we are about is not reflected in the language used in particular items of legislation. I cannot understand that. There is no one whose lot would not be improved if the language used in legislation clearly and more precisely spelt out the detail of such legislation.

Senator Brian Hayes will be aware that when we were drafting our report on Seanad reform, we put forward a suggestion that, before Second Stage is taken, there should be a debating process involving those who stand to be affected by legislation. These people could be invited to the House, given the right to listen to the views of the lawmakers and those responsible for drafting legislation and they would then be in a position to indicate what should happen. Members may believe it is absurd to suggest that we should give the people a say in the development of legislation but I am of the opinion that this would be good. This is one of the matters we will be pursuing strongly in our reform package.

We operate here in a sort of semi-incestuous atmosphere. We talk to one another and believe that we are doing great work. In the main, we are doing good work but the people who stand to be affected by the law do not know anything about it until Second Stage is taken in either House. I agree with Senator Brian Hayes when a Bill is dealt with by a committee, Members are very much ruled by the civil servants who run the secretariat. I have no complaint about these people because they do great work. However, the people who stand to be materially affected by law — for good or ill — should be involved and consulted in the process at the earlier drafting stage. This would give rise to much better legislation than that envisaged, drafted, submitted and put through the Houses in isolation from those it stands to affect. What I am saying may sound outlandish but why should that be the case? We make legislation on behalf of the people. Such legislation is not intended to hold sway in some form of pious never never land.

I doubt if matters relating to the Interpretation Bill will become clearer on Committee Stage. I cannot make much sense of the Bill. Members may think I am a silly woman but I am of the opinion that I am speaking the truth. Other people might not like to do so because they may not wish to disturb anybody. Surely, however, the Interpretation Bill should make matters clearer. To interpret something is to understand it and make it clearer. This Bill does not make anything clear to me.