Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This Bill is rather technical legislation, but it is important and necessary. It represents another step in the journey to clarifying and simplifying the Irish Statute Book. I would like to commend my officials and the Law Reform Commission, who have worked on this. That involved reviewing all primary legislation from 1860 to 1922. We understand this represents the most extensive review of statute law ever undertaken globally. This Bill's enactment will deliver benefits in facilitating the process of public governance reform, reducing the regulatory burden on business and citizens. It will ensure that our Statute Book is significantly more modern and it will enhance public accessibility to the laws that govern our people as they go about their daily lives. I thank all Senators for their interest in this Bill, particularly Senator Boyhan.

I will speak on amendments Nos. 1 and 3. Senator Boyhan put forward the case raised by the Genealogical Society of Ireland and its concerns about this. We have looked at this and the Department and Law Reform Commission do not agree with that perspective. The reason for that is that the 1685 Order was retained in the 2015 Act. Following consultation with the National Library of Ireland and the Office of the Chief Herald in 2021, it was decided that it would be and needed to be retained yet again. Since its inception way back in 1685, this Order has never lapsed. The Office of the Chief Herald, which was established in 1943, was a mechanism that was used to fold the office into the Irish State. It was done through two separate Orders transferring the office to the National Library of Ireland. Since then, the office has continued to carry out its niche role in Ireland.It is the lawful successor to the Ulster King of Arms in this jurisdiction, and is empowered to carry out its functions through both the 1685 Act and the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997.

The powers within section 13(2) of the 1997 Act could be construed as a regulatory function, and that is under the remit of the 1685 order, but the 1685 order is not being reinstated, so no new powers are being conferred. Retention is simply an acknowledgement of the existence of an order that has existed uninterrupted since 1685. That followed consultation and it was agreed to be kept by the direct stakeholders following two separate rounds of consultation. Based on this, and indeed the public consultation that was carried out, both my Department and the Law Reform Commission believe that it is legally justifiable to include the 1685 order on the list for retention.