Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

I thank the House for a very interesting and stimulating debate on this important piece of legislation. This country has a unique parliamentary tradition. Given the history of the pre-Independence period and the period from Independence to the present and despite the turmoil, the violence and difficulties, this is the fourth oldest parliamentary democracy in Europe. We did not go the way of fascist Europe in the 1930s and 1940s and throughout that period, even with the difficulty of the Civil War, our Parliament has remained in place since Independence. Even though we are a young State, we are an old parliamentary democracy. Even in the period before Independence, the parliamentary tradition was very strong and with such a tradition it is inevitable that laws are passed which rightly focus on the rights of individuals and of companies and associations. This unique parliamentary experience has produced all these rights in such a way that is comprehensible to the public and available to them.

Before I reply to the individual points made by Senators in their contributions, this Government is very aware of the need, when introducing new laws, to ensure those laws are put through a robust test which we describe as the regulatory impact assessment process. It is an ambition in the programme for Government that any new legislation must be filtered out, as it were, by way of a regulatory impact assessment before it is published. This process gives us the confidence to know that proper consultation has occurred at drafting and pre-drafting stages so that there is an engagement with stakeholders and that some of the issues are teased out before Committee Stage. I cannot say if this is what happens in all cases but I refer to a Bill which was introduced in this House by Senator Quinn before the last general election, the construction contracts Bill, and which is now before the other House. That Bill underwent a fully published regulatory impact assessment and the Bill will be the better for it, in my view.

This revision should not be regarded merely as a theoretical exercise or some kind of academic reading of books which takes years and whereby obsolete legislation is removed. There are real and practical benefits from this exercise which were clearly demonstrated in the OECD report in 2010 which highlighted the work of the statute law revision project and commended the then Government for continuing that work. I echo the points made by Senator Quinn because once legislation is tidied up and obsolete statutes are removed, the cost of red tape to business is reduced and this is a service to the professions, to business, to ordinary citizens and there is clarification of entitlements under the law. There is nothing theoretical about this project because its results are practical and real and it will make a significant difference to practitioners and the general public.

The codification of law is in all our interests. I refer to Senator O' Donovan's point about codification of the criminal law and I raised this matter with my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality. In order to effect codification, the obsolete legislation must first be removed because the total burden of legislation needs to be reduced. I fully agree with his remarks that we need a simple codified body of legislation not only in criminal law but also for financial dealings. Every year I make the same criticism of the Finance Act because it amends all the preceding principal Acts. This is not a good way to do business because people find it difficult to understand where the law stands.

To reply to Senator O'Donovan, the first objective of this revision exercise, which has been ongoing for the best part of a decade, is to remove the obsolete legislation and then to look at the post-Independence legislation which is obsolete and which is the next part of the work and which needs to be changed.

I wish to reply to a number of points raised by Senator Sheahan about the continuation of the project. As I indicated, I envisage that subject to appropriate consultation, resources and a Government decision, attention will need to be given in early course to statutory rules, orders and charters. I am also keen to look at post-1922 legislation, if possible. It will therefore not be just up to Independence but also post-Independence. I am hoping to have the support of the House for any further amendments that my Department might bring forward in the course of the statute law revision project.

He also correctly raised the question on detailed consultation, asking if we had consulted widely with stakeholders to ensure we are getting it right in removing obsolete law. The contribution of relevant bodies and interested parties has always been welcomed. Draft schedules have been available on the Attorney General's website and contact details have invited submissions. I understand that submissions have been made. I would envisage that any further phase will also welcome such contributions from interested parties. I want to assure the Senator, therefore, that that has occurred.

Senator Feargal Quinn referred to what he described as a glorious spring clean of legislation, and he is right in that respect. I agree with his remarks concerning the need to reduce bureaucracy and red tape, while ultimately introducing codified law. I also agree with him and other colleagues that when we are introducing legislation it should be written as plainly and simply as possible. It is more complicated when one is cross-referencing new law with existing law, which comprises a number of Acts. Nonetheless there is a responsibility for plain speaking and clear laws, which help the public and practitioners to understand what is in the mind of the Oireachtas when it passes laws.

I am aware of fascinating discussions that occur when the High Court or Supreme Court tries to get into the mind of the Oireachtas and discern what it meant when passing a given law. Frequently, judges read the Official Report of debates to get a sense of what was in the mind of Members of the Oireachtas when a certain law was passed. I agree with colleagues therefore that we have an obligation when introducing laws to write them as plainly and straightforwardly as we possibly can so that there is clarity, and that ultimately these matters are not open to judicial contest if a legislative action is not clear.

I agree with Senator Lorraine Higgins who, from her professional perspective, made the point better than I did about the need to remove obsolete legislation. She put on the record the practical benefits this legislation will give to legal practitioners. When they are presenting submissions to the courts, they will not have to go back through pre-Independence legislation, much of which is obsolete and will be removed as a result of this Bill. That point was well made.

Senator Mullins introduced some other arguments. While I accept the point he is making about codification, I think he has got the wrong end of the stick when it comes to this Bill. His basic premise was that we should just be concerned about what has happened since Independence, and that nothing that happened before Independence has any great practical impact or effect. With respect to Senator Mullins, however, he is not right about that. There are many pieces of pre-Independence legislation which we are keeping and which have a direct impact on organisations, groups and rights that currently exist. I will refer to two of them. The Dublin Fire Brigade and Dublin Corporation Act of 1862 is being retained in law largely because it is still of benefit. In addition, the Coroners and Mortuary Act of 1907 is also being retained. The Senator proposes that our task should be to examine everything post-Independence and that we should forget the historical, academic pre-Independence exercise. It does not stack up that way, however. This is not an academic process, it is a wholly practical one. I have cited those two pieces of legislation which we will retain because they are still of significant benefit.

I want to thank Senator Keane for her contribution which referred to the publication of pre-1922 legislation on the Internet, of which I would be supportive. At present, the publication of legislation on the Internet is a function of the Law Reform Commission, which I understand is in the process of arranging to make available electronically certain pre-1922 Acts. That is the point Senator Keane raised.

I also wish to thank Senator Cullinane and others for their kind and generous remarks about the Attorney General's office. Senator Cullinane referred to the fact that interns were working on this project, but I think that is an entirely good thing. They were working with experienced legal researchers and colleagues in the Attorney General's office, and I hope they have got some good experience from doing so. It is good that they were involved in this project and their enormous enthusiasm and assistance for the process is rightly appreciated. I hope they have obtained something from that training.

In conclusion, this has been a very useful Second Stage debate on an important Bill, which will have a practical impact on the business community, legal practitioners and citizens generally. It will bring to the next stage of development a piece of work that has gone on for the best part of a decade and from which there are real benefits. It reminds us all of our continuous responsibilities in this House and the other House, whether we are introducing new law or amending existing law, to do so in a way which is modern and brings maximum clarity to bear. In that way people can know what exactly is in the mind of the Oireachtas and where the balance lies in any legislation initiated by any Member or any Government.

I look forward to Committee Stage which I understand, with the agreement of the House, may be taken next week. If there are specific issues I will deal with them on that occasion. I have been reliably informed that witchcraft laws were repealed in 2007, so we do not have to re-examine them.