Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, to delete lines 11 to 16.

I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate her on her appointment. I welcome her staff who are here and have much experience in these matters. These three amendments are grouped. I have tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and will speak collectively to those two amendments.

We are debating Committee Stage of the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024. I want to make a number of points on the record about the background of these two amendments. I will be brief and concise. The principal purpose of this Bill is to repeal spent and obsolete secondary instruments enacted on or after 1 January 1821 and before 1 January 1861. It is a hell of a long time ago. This Bill will also repeal those instruments enacted before 1 January 1821 that are still in force and were not repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 2015. The process leading to the Bill involved a review, carried out by the Law Reform Commission. I understand one of the Minister of State's team today is from the Law Reform Commission. The review scrutinised more than 40,000 secondary instruments to ascertain if they were obsolete or were to be repealed or retained. Of those, 3,367 will be repealed by the Bill and are listed in Schedule 2. It is proposed that five instruments will be retained, which are listed in Schedule 1. There is a subtle difference between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2.

I am proposing to reduce that to four instruments as opposed to five. This will require the deletion of the 1685 proclamation. I will explain why. Before I do, I want to make a few points. The claim that the chief herald is the lawful successor to the Ulster King of Arms was totally debunked during the drafting, in 1996, of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997. The then Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht was Michael D. Higgins. One can see from the record of the library the extensive debates that went on about these matters. There is a strong history in the Oireachtas of debates in both Houses about these matters. This is not something that some yahoo or I, as Senator, fell in here with as some great idea. There is a history and logic to this. There have been protracted discussions and debate about these issues.

Section 13(1) of the 1997 Act reflects the position, as it does not link the genealogical office with the crown office known as the Ulster King of Arms. A concept that is underpinned by this 1685 proclamation that I talked about earlier is called the port of gentry. It is rather a strange title. It states that a man must have achieved particular standing in society to be eligible for the grant of arms. This concept has no place whatsoever in our constitutional framework. It is contrary to our concept of equality of citizenship and totally incompatible with the equal status legislation. The retention of this 1685 proclamation on our Statute Book would clearly be incompatible with a status of a Republic based on equal citizenship alone. My proposal is that we would remove it.

I now go to the two amendments. Amendment No. 1 to Schedule 1 is, "In page 9 to delete lines 11 to 16." The rationale is that Schedule 1 of the Bill lists instruments to be retained in force. It mentions a range of proclamations going back as far as the 17th century. It reads as follows: "Proclamation authorising Ulster King of Arms to prevent improper use of arms, style of esquire or gentleman, etc." I am of the view that we are a Republic and have been for over 100 years. Such a proclamation should be removed from our Statute Book. It has no place in a republic. We are making laws and statutes. We live in a republic. We operate in a Parliament that is in a republic. We should be mindful of that.

Amendment No. 2 is to insert more on page 11 between lines 8 and 9. These are revoked matters. "Revoke" is a more appropriate word than "deletion". The Minister of State's officials can correct me if I am wrong.