Seanad debates

Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Statute Law Revision Bill 2007: Second Stage

 

8:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I thank Senator Henry for sharing time. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I had thought I would be delayed elsewhere but I would not have missed this for the world because it is fascinating. I echo the compliments expressed to the members of the team present in the Gallery, who have done a remarkable amount of work. I am reminded of what Napoleon said with regard to codifying French law under the Code Napoleon. Before Napoleon took this step, the law in France was, like Paris, chaotic and medieval. This was at a time when Dublin was being developed as the first fully planned city in Europe. The work done by those present in the Gallery represents an enormous undertaking and I congratulate them.

I agree with Senator Henry that it would have been immense fun to engage in such work. What we are being presented with is a complete, documented social history. I will return to that matter later because I first wish to make some reasonable and rational points before indulging myself, as others have done, in the delights of the archaeology of the legal system, which are revealed in this rather large Bill.

So much work has been done and I hope we have taken a further step and have, or are about to, catalogue these Acts by subject. The latter would be extremely helpful, particularly if one could browse the entire list of Acts relating to conveyancing or whatever through the use of computer technology. When new Bills are produced, they always have attached to them a rigmarole of the Acts which must be repealed. In this Bill, we are being presented with a raft of such Acts.

My second point is that I hope the important process in which we are engaged will continue. I recall with great pleasure the Leader's digressive and discursive contribution to the debate on previous legislation in which she commented upon the arcane delights of Acts such as those to which the Bill refers. This is an immensely interesting subject because it provides one with a picture of the history involved. The process should continue. We dealt with legislation of the sort before us on a previous occasion. May I steal a phrase and state that there is "A lot done, more to do". Does that ring a bell?

The Local and Personal Acts have not yet been examined. There are also private Acts and the Statutory Rules and Orders. As Senator Brian Hayes indicated, some of the legislation and statutory instruments introduced post-1922 needs to be examined. Members on all sides are of the opinion that this work is not finished and we look forward, in the knowledge that a great deal has been already done, to a further tidying up operation.

A constituent contacted me regarding the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which remains on the Statute Book. This is an extremely defective item of legislation. I spoke to the principal adviser present in the Gallery — he has been already named and rightly celebrated — who indicated that there are two processes at issue here. What is being done in the Bill merely involves retaining or repealing legislation. The other form of Bill in this area involves repealing and replacing legislation. Let us move on and engage in repealing and replacing legislation because it is ridiculous to have in place an Act from 1911 that does not meet current conditions. Luckily, we did not experience incidents similar to those which incurred in Britain involving children being savaged by pit bull terriers, Staffordshire pups, etc. However, there is nothing to prevent them from happening in the future and we need to consider the matter before a tragedy occurs. I hope, therefore, that consideration will be given to introducing the relevant legislation.

I disagree with colleagues in respect of the Irish language. It was a wonderful idea to try to extinguish the Irish language by legislation. We are the most awkward, difficult, rebellious people on earth. The Irish language has been a total calamity. The best way to revive it would be to outlaw it and to make the penalty for using it death by hanging in a public place. There then would be queues of people outside Linguaphone intent on learning the language.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.