Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

I echo the Minister of State's tribute to the staff who worked on this Bill. Their heads must have been spinning with the names, dates and descriptions.

I have been looking at some of the Acts. The Sunday Fairs Act penalised those who kept fairs and markets on a Sunday. I remember when the Minister of State had responsibility for labour affairs, there was a brouhaha about Sunday trading and the possible necessity to introduce legislation — there was already a law in place that penalised people who opened their shops.

The Princess Sophia's Precedence Act is interesting. It is said to be one of the most important Acts in British history. Queen Anne had 18 children and survived them all. By 1711 it became obvious that the Queen, then aged 46, would not provide a legitimate heir. This was the first time in British history that a foreigner had been invited by Act of Parliament to take over the throne of England. Had she survived, England would have had a Queen Sophia but she died in the same year as Anne, leading to the accession of George I, the first of the Hanovers.

There was an interesting Royal Marriages Act in 1772 in response to the marriage of Henry, Duke of Cumberland and brother of George III, who married someone unsuitable for the royal family. That Act made it illegal for any member of the British royal family under the age of 25 to marry without the consent of the ruling monarch. I heard that Act quoted by a commentator and historian speaking about Prince Charles on BBC recently but he was wrong because Prince Charles is over 25 so he did not have to run to his mother to seek permission to marry, although I suppose he did anyway.

Senator Brian Hayes noted that since the Minister of State appeared here on Second Stage of the Bill, his staff have unearthed a great deal more legislation that will fall. I was interested in the point that Senator Hayes made about a barrister finding an old Act that he could use to defend a client. If it is repealed it is no longer valid, but if an Act was skipped and the lawyer used it, even if it dated back 400 years, what would be the outcome?