Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This technical amendment is required to deal with the inclusion of a writ referred to as the "Statute of Winchester, observance in Ireland (1308)" in the Bill for repeal. This writ is a new addition to the list of Acts for repeal that have been classified traditionally as one of the pre-Union Irish statutes 1308-1800 in Part 1 of the Schedule. However, it is not entirely accurate to describe it as a statute and would have been misleading to include it therein. The Government's amendment addresses this anomaly by listing it specifically in the main text of the Bill.

The method of extension by writ was used to apply some of the important enactments of Edward I's reign to Ireland. This 1308 writ was the first example of such when the Statute of Winchester was sent for observance in Ireland. The Statute of Winchester itself, an English statute, dates back to 1285. It is one of the statutes of the Parliament of England recommended for repeal in this Bill. As such, it is listed in Part 2 of the amended Schedule.

The Statute of Winchester was a milestone in English law enforcement and was the only legislation relating to the policing of England for almost 600 years until the Metropolitan Police Act 1829. It recited that "robberies, homicides and burnings are more frequently committed than heretofore they were wont to be". It dealt with various matters such the opening and closing times of the gates of "great towns", the times of the "night watch" and the "hue and cry" that demanded that every citizen should assist the "sheriff" in the pursuit of an offender. In Ireland, the only remaining provision of the Statute of Winchester, dealing with fairs and markets in churchyards, is obsolete and is also being repealed.

Referring back to the writ of 1308 to which this amendment relates, the writ would have been sent to the justiciar, reciting that the King was bound by oath to preserve peace in Ireland and commanding observance of "the statute lately published at Winchester, in all and singular its articles". Apparently, this writ was then read and publicly proclaimed "in cities, burghs, market towns and other places, as well within liberties as without". The writ was enrolled and set out in detail the lawless state of the Irish counties and commanded the justiciar that, with the Irish Council, he was to ordain and proclaim in the towns that the "hue and cry" was to be observed.

When the various elements of these transactions are sorted out, it is clear that the Statute of Winchester was transmitted for observance in Ireland, that the actual terms of the statute were sent in transcript form and that detailed provisions about the method of proclamation and observance of the statute were made. However, to describe the writ as a statute and to include it within the Schedule to this Bill among the "Pre-Union Irish Statutes" would be misleading and, therefore, the Government amendment to section 1 specifically addresses this anomaly. It is a technical matter and I hope the House agrees with me.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment is very interesting.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his historical explanation as to why he is proposing this legislation. To me, it would seem to be a very good statute.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The times of gates closing in a particular location would be well known and every citizen would be obliged to help the sheriff or, now, the Garda. These are useful aspects of the legislation that was then enacted. I will not ask the Minister of State to explain why he thinks I should give up on this, as all he has asked me to do is mention it under section 1. We accept this amendment is necessary and useful.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment is very interesting. I note the "hue and cry" aspect and the many hues and cries we observe nowadays. I agree with the element wherein every citizen was to help the sheriff to catch his man or woman. We were only to observe this statute in Ireland but, as in all of the relevant matters, this was extremely interesting. Does the Minister of State intend to introduce this element again?

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would support such action.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senators for their co-operation in this matter. One can picture these Acts being physically brought to Ireland, perhaps on horseback, and being implemented in Ireland on the basis of the judiciar's involvement. My advice concerning this quasi-statute is that we must proceed in the way outlined.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government's second amendment merely inserts revised wording to improve the syntax of section 2(2) and addresses an anomaly pointed out by Senator Tuffy on Second Stage. The content of the subsection itself is a standard saving provision included in Statute Law Revision Bills and I will try to explain this in less technical terms.

The Acts included for repeal in this Bill had many far-reaching legislative effects. They not only regulated law and order and the social mores of the previous generations, but Acts or statutes frequently contained many technical provisions dealing with the legislation itself or, in some instances, with previous legislation. For example, in an effort to provide certainty, provisions are sometimes drafted to confirm earlier legislation or the general understanding of existing legislation. These provisions almost always underwrite the status quo. They do not extend previous powers in any way or extend the existing law. These types of provisions are merely confirming in nature. The inclusion of section 2(2) in this Bill ensures that if any of the Acts it is listing for repeal had a similar confirming provision, then the repeal will not prevent the confirming provision from continuing to have effect. I hope my explanation is clear.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was not.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In this regard, I do not envy our drafters who must deal with this type of legislation. The effect of existing legislation that merely confirms is not being interfered with.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In other words, the imposition of this will not take away any existing rights of application that either the courts or this House might adduce from current legislation.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Correct.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Whether we like it or not, many of the Acts dating between 1307 and now have current applications. For the courts, it is important to state this fact.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Exactly.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Tuffy should be congratulated for highlighting the issue that, where a judgment is being made, it can continue to be made even if the legislation as referred to is cited in the Schedule.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Indeed.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is my interpretation correct?

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator's interpretation is correct. Senator Tuffy rightly referred to the need to improve the language here and we are taking her suggestion under consideration.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment brings us to the heart of the debate we had on Second Stage. Although this amendment is straightforward, its consequences are impressive. Government amendment No. 3 replaces the existing Schedule, containing 91 Acts, with a new Schedule, containing 218 Acts to be repealed.

As Senators will recall from my Second Stage speech, that the initial research by the statute law revision unit, or SLRU, carried out during 2003 and 2004, focused on the source of legislation known as the Statutes Revised, to ascertain the extent to which the pre-1922 legislation was still in force in Ireland. As a result of this review, approximately 110 Acts were identified by the statute law revision unit to be in possible need of repeal, on the basis that they were in force, but on a preliminary view were not of practical utility.

A public web-based consultation process was undertaken, which lasted several months. Departments were also supplied with a list of legislation relevant to their respective areas. They were asked for their opinion on the preliminary view formed by the SLRU regarding their suitability for repeal. The result of that exercise was the list of legislation set out in the original Schedule to this Act, which it is now proposed to replace through this amendment.

Since the Bill was published on 25 November 2004, the Attorney General's office has continued its detailed research in order to effectively determine the exact status of each Act enacted prior to 1922. The Office of the Attorney General has been re-examining pre-Union Irish Statutes, and also the more comprehensive information resource known as the Statutes of the Realm, which now comprises the annual volumes of UK legislation. This contains the text of Acts that may have been repealed as to England, but are still in force in this jurisdiction.

I would like to point out to the House that the public were once again made aware of this research and the wider Acts that had been identified for repeal, and consultations were held again with the relevant Departments. Tremendous work has been carried out in a brief period in order to identify the additional Acts now proposed for repeal.

I will take Senators briefly through the Schedule, which is divided into four parts. Part I repeals the "Pre-Union Irish Statutes", which comprise statutes made by any Parliament sitting in Ireland between 1310 and 1800. Fortunately, a great deal of legislative spring cleaning has taken place concerning these statutes. A significant number of them have already been repealed by three previous Acts, namely, the Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Acts of 1878 and 1879, and the Statute Law Revision (Pre-Union Irish Statutes) Act 1962.

Part 2, in essence, contains two categories of statute, namely, Acts of the English Parliament passed before and after Poynings' Act of 1495. As Senators will see from the titles, much of this legislation dates from the 13th century and deals with matters relating to the Crown, felons, ancient customs and traditions, the administration of justice, religion, treason and excommunication, to name but a few. It is fascinating but certainly obsolete. In fact, much of it has already been repealed in England.

Part 3 contains a number of Acts from the period following the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707. Legislation from 1707 onwards is referred to as British rather than English.

Part 4 contains United Kingdom legislation from 1801 to 1922. During this period, sole legislative authority for Ireland was vested in the United Kingdom Parliament. The question as to whether any particular Act from this period applied to Ireland is not always easy to answer. Many Acts, especially in the Victorian era, expressly provided for their territorial application. In other cases, the application or otherwise to Ireland appears from the context. The research methodology used by the statute law revision unit in determining whether an Act was applicable to Ireland, was that unless it could clearly be said that an Act did not apply to Ireland, it should be considered as potentially applying and, therefore, could be considered for repeal.

A considerable number of Acts are included for repeal in Part 4, with a great variety of subject matters, including trade, manufacturing, health and safety, finance, justice, defence and education. While they reflect the society they regulated, that society has long since been transformed.

Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity today to deal with each individual one, but the Office of the Attorney General has kindly provided us with a brief synopsis of each of the 218 Acts listed for repeal in this revised Schedule. Clearly, the many additional Acts have simply served their purpose, not decades, but centuries ago.

I am sure Senators will see many important items in the list of Acts to be repealed. On a personal note, I found the titles of a great number of the Acts to be repealed were fascinating. The list allows us a glimpse into the minds of parliamentarians, as legislators, in those times. It also permits us to sample a flavour of life in centuries past. We take for granted our comforts and all the protections modern legislation affords us. We have become more tolerant, I hope, and more careful and protective of all our citizens, especially the old and the infirm.

In particular, I welcome the repeal in this Bill of two Statutes of uncertain date — they are believed to have been enacted in the 14th century during the reign of Edward II — with the offensive titles of "Lands of idiots and lunatics". It is no longer appropriate to have such legislation on our Statute Book and the removal of such antiquated and insulting material will affirm the respect the State owes to all its citizens, regardless of their circumstances.

Yesterday, the Law Reform Commission launched its most recent paper on vulnerable adults and the law. It has recommended that phrases such as "idiot", "lunatics" and "those of unsound mind" should be removed from all legislation dealing with the capacity of people with mental disabilities. In this respect, it is most opportune that this House is today complying with that obligation.

I am also happy to report that the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002, as passed by this House, will repeal a number of obsolete pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 and the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883.

The list of Acts to be repealed contains many interesting legislative items.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Sunday Fairs Act of 1448, which penalised those who kept fairs and markets on Sundays, is interesting.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, indeed. On a more general theme of statute law revision, I am aware that a number of Departments have already commenced reviews of the legislation within their own remit, either in consultation with the statute law revision unit or of their own accord. For example, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has examined land laws. In addition, the customs and excise service is examining relevant legislation and the area of employment rights is also under review.

It is difficult for Departments to keep their current legislative programmes on track, but it is essential that we continue to take the time and apply resources to the examination of the pre-existing law. There is simply no point in continually adding to the layers already there. With every new Bill that is enacted, there is an opportunity to repeal spent or obsolete legislation and, where appropriate, that opportunity should be availed of.

It is self-evident that the Statute Book should be up to date and accessible. Badly organised and obsolete legislation is a hazard for citizens, the legal profession, the courts, Government and, most of all, the legal process itself. The statute law revision unit is continuing with the programme on pre-1922 legislation and I look forward to piloting further revision legislation.

While I realise that we have not yet finished with the Bill's passage through the House, I pay tribute to my officials who have worked on the legislation. It has taken them much time and energy. They are very committed to their work, for which I thank them.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for moving amendment No. 3, as well as for circulating a brief description of each of the Acts to be repealed by the Schedule. It is fair to say that this is quite a radical departure from the initial Bill. As the Minister of State has said, the existing Schedule contained 91 Acts, while the new Schedule contains 218 Acts to be repealed. The question any good Opposition Member should pose is whether, if the Bill was not passed until next year, there would be a further 50 Acts in the Schedule?

It is clear from the Minister of State's speech that some Departments are better than others at identifying obsolete and impractical Acts that fall within their remit. I join with the Minister of State in giving credit to his staff in the statute law revision unit and the staff of the Office of the Attorney General for having achieved an amazing amount of work. This work should remain under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, through the Office of the Attorney General. I am aware of one piece of legislation that was promised in 2002 by the Minister for Justice, Equality and law Reform, to codify liquor licensing, yet we are still awaiting it three years later.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is important, therefore, that a strong message emanate from the Department of the Taoiseach, through the Office of the Attorney General, that Departments need to take this matter much more seriously. Reading between the lines of what the Minister of State has said, I suspect that the Office of the Attorney General wishes to give that impression.

The Minister of State referred to the question of a practical utility. Has he considered putting a definition in the Bill as to what exactly that utility is? If a matter came before the courts and a barrister used a statute from a previous generation to argue the case, his or her interpretation of its practical utility might differ from the Minister of State's interpretation. Did the Minister of State consider what he means by "practical utility"?

The Bill was published in late 2004 and since then the amount of legislation covered has increased to a great degree. Must we revisit this on a yearly basis? How does the Minister of State propose to do that? Will he introduce a Bill on an annual basis to update the pre-1922 statutes or will he do it on a three-year basis? In just six months, the Minister of State has identified an additional 120 statutes that should be included. If we are trying to get this right, we may need to add additional Acts that become obsolete or impractical.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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?

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Since Second Stage, we did not just add to the number of Acts, we also made some changes to the original list. We are trying to mop up but we are conscious that there is ongoing work on intoxicating liquor, land and employment rights legislation and we must be careful not to interfere with such legislation because of that very point. Our staff carefully examine each statute and if it is spent in every sense, it will go but if there is any doubt, it stays.

There is much more work to do. We are only starting the process and it is important and exciting. There is criticism of over-regulation and complexity in terms of our membership of the European Union but we are seeking more efficiency in this area. This is part of the bigger picture and we will achieve our goal by getting rid of this obsolete legislation.

It will not be long before someone comes back to the House to undertake further work. A. G. Donaldson did tremendous work in his 1956 thesis on the pre-1800 legislation entitled, "The Application of British Statute to Ireland" and the staff involved in this drew from it.

We do not prepare or publish revised statutes and there are no plans to do so. The intention is to focus on the pre-1922 legislation, repeal spent and obsolete legislation and eventually repeal, re-enact and modernise, where necessary, the remaining relevant legislation so the full corpus of Irish law would date from post-1922. The ultimate objective is the repeal of all pre-1922 legislation so there will be no need to revise the body of law.

The identification of legislation suitable for appeal has been a difficult task. The repeal and re-enactment of existing pre-1922 legislation is a formidable undertaking. It is not available electronically and we should be conscious that we do not lose the tremendous work that was done before the electronic age. It shows how much easier it is now to consolidate or restate legislation. I referred to Mr. A. G. Donaldson's work, which is interesting in its presentation because of the typing errors it includes.

I was asked how many pre-1922 Acts exist. The precise number is not yet known but the determination of what is in force or applies to Ireland has commenced and we may have those numbers later this year. The determination of the number of Acts is part of the master list project. At present up to 1,000 Acts still apply to Ireland that have not been repealed. The master list project entails a detailed examination of approximately 25,000 Acts to determine which of them are still on the Statute Book.

An assessment is also taking place regarding the possibility of publishing a second revision Bill which will depart from the normal statute law revision mechanism of repeal, which is essentially negative. The new Bill will positively list all legislation remaining in force. The master list will be viewed from a positive perspective rather than a mopping up operation such as this Bill. This will give clarity to citizens and legal professionals as to what pre-1922 legislation remains in force.

Projects to assess pre-1922 local, personal and private Acts and pre-1922 secondary legislation will be devised after the completion of the study of general and public statutes. Other efforts, such as consolidation, restatement and codification, are continuing in respect of post-1922 legislation. My office and the Attorney General's office are aware that there may always be criticisms of the numbers of consolidations or restatements and the lack of widespread codification. I assure Senators that efforts are being made on a Department-by-Department basis, as the impetus for consolidation traditionally emanates from Departments. However, we all know the all-consuming demands made by the legislative programme on a day-to-day basis.

In an ideal world, it would be beneficial to have codification of relevant laws. We are working towards this ideal. The work programme, already outlined, is a necessary precursor for plans for the future. However, we must focus on the positive and acknowledge that the transparency and accessibility of the Statue Book will be improved with progress such as this revision Bill. This is the beginning of an interesting exercise. It has provoked a good debate in the House. While I would like to see this work continue, there is also the issue of available resources. Departments have their priorities and must manage various crises that emerge. However, there must be a steady work level in this area and I will do my utmost to ensure this work continues.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that much of this is driven by the statute law revision unit which has done sterling work against the odds. Will the Minister of State further outline the modus operandi of the unit? Does it ask Departments which obsolete legislation they want revised? Does it then go through the legislation, submit a view on it and the Department signs off on it?

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Then the process depends on what each Department throws up.

When this Bill is enacted, it will simply repeal legislation and a revised Statute Book will not be published. The British are beginning to follow this process. It is important for business, the law and people who have to deal with these matters. As the Minister of State said, it is important that, with the development of technology, we reach a stage where legislation dealing with each area of human activity is in a codified system. Has he any timeframe for this? When will the revised Statue Book be published? Any citizen or body involved in this area wants to be able to see a list of the laws concerning certain activities. I am not criticising the Government as it has done more in this area than previous governments. As it is not a priority for governments, it tends to fall off the list of priorities. A revised Statute Book must be consumer friendly.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For example, the Fabric (Misdescriptions) Act 1913 has been superseded by an EU directive. It is important that the Minister of State presses ahead with this work. Secondary legislation and directives are increasingly governing our lives. They tend to come in large tranches, much more than we wish. Not alone will the Minister of State be dealing with Acts from the 13th century and the Princess Sophia's Precedence Act, but he will be dealing with the EU directives with their attendant euro-jargonese, which is difficult to penetrate. Codification of EU directives will also be needed. The Minister of State has outlined a platform of work and I urge him to press ahead with it.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They whipped it.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

New legislation covering minerals has been introduced. Modern legislation also covers the provisions of the Lands of Lunatics Statute. This legislation is spent and has achieved its purpose. Our officials will continue to delve through the various legislation but it is demanding on time. The second revision Bill will examine the matter from a different perspective and will be positive in putting up the existing legislation.

This is the first step in an ongoing programme. The Taoiseach initiated this programme for reform for better regulation. Our system of statute law should comply with the most elementary requirements of any system. With regard to Senator O'Rourke's point about EU directives, it will be useful to see existing legislation presented in a positive way and intermeshed with modern legislation. Every repeal that is carried out not only reduces the area of uncertainty but is a step towards the development of a list of statutes in force. One can argue that this work is well overdue. I will do my best to ensure it continues on an organised basis.

I thank the officials from my division and the Attorney General's office for the significant body of research and work they have undertaken to bring the Bill to fruition. It has been an arduous task to seek out Acts that still apply to Ireland and then to ascertain if they are suitable for repeal. That involves a lot of work. The fact that so many additional Acts have been added to the Schedule today is testimony to the dedication of those who did the work. I thank them, as does the Government, for the time and effort put in. "Practical utility" is a modern term which we do not define. We examined the Acts and referred them to Departments to see if they use the legislation or have a need for it. If not, and we were happy to repeal certain Acts, we did so. Practical utility could end up as a matter to be interpreted by the courts. However, we need some gauge or measure, and practical utility is the most convenient. Otherwise we would have to keep all our laws forever.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill is not one which will give rise to hallelujahs in the street, or paeans of praise from anyone, yet a great deal of very necessary work has gone into it. No doubt there were many hours of research, checking and re-checking with the Attorney General. I thank him too, because much of the work took place in his office.

I also thank the Minister of State. Every Minister likes to promote what one might call sexy legislation. If one talks of café bars, for example, one gets headlines. If one talks of the Statute of Winchester 1285, one does not hear many hallelujahs or paeans of praise, but the Bill is very necessary, and the Taoiseach is to be commended for taking the step he did. He will not get hallelujahs either, but without this legislation the entire administrative system would clog up, with people scratching their heads and wondering if should refer back to Acts of 1344, for example, or of 1918, or whatever. This would result in a complete mess.

The Bill is the beginning of a journey. One could call it an adventure, which I suppose it is, but it is the beginning of an ongoing journey which has now been taken up. We wish the best of luck in their endeavours to all those who go down the road of statute law revision. I thank the Minister of State for the time he gave to the matter.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for attending the House and I thank, as he rightly and generously did, the statute law revision unit in the Office of the Attorney General, which has spearheaded this work on behalf of us all in recent years. In particular, I thank Mr. Donaldson, who established that unit, though he no longer works there. I may be wrong about that and do not want to mislead the House.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is in Paris.

Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is enjoying himself, I hope.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He left the unit as his legacy to the rest of us. I congratulate all who brought the work forward.

Looking back at the period from the 1300s to now, it was for only a very short period that we had no Parliament in Ireland, from the time of the Act of Union in 1801 until 1922, or more correctly, for those of us who believe in the Republic, until 1919. Much has happened in that period and it makes great sense for us to repeal obsolete and inoperable legislation of the past. It is important that we do so.

Having repealed certain laws, we must now make sense of the situation, and the only way to do so in the long run is to produce a revised Statute Book pre-1922. Much work has been done relating to the period from 1922 onwards but the big problem relates to the operable parts of legislation enacted before 1922. The Minister of State hinted that work is progressing in the area. It is important for business, the law and all organisations which deal with any of these pieces of legislation and Acts to have them codified, and to have the information available in a technologically suitable and compatible manner, accessible by all citizens. I welcome the Bill and I hope it helps us all in terms of overcoming excessive bureaucracy and regulation.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate now and on the last occasion. I also thank them for acknowledging the hard work of the officials involved. I merely present the matter as a fait accompli, but like Members, I found it all an interesting exercise. In politics, we never cease to learn, and this matter has involved a great learning process with which we are all involved. Mr. A. G. Donaldson has moved from his position in the statute law revision unit and the person in charge of the team which has done all the work in this area is Ms Fiona Carroll. I thank her and her team.

This is a fascinating area of legislation which I am sure we will revisit. As Senator O'Rourke said, the work involved is important. It will probably not get any headlines, but we are not always looking for headlines and must get on with our work regardless. I remind the House that people like Senator O'Rourke, when she was a Minister, would have been very involved in such work. She was a Minister in the labour area, the same area in which I was involved, working on the process of consolidation of legislation. Much unsung work is being done in the area by Ministers and Departments. The health and safety area provides a good example, as does the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 1993.

Consolidation means the process whereby the Oireachtas passes an Act which collects all the relevant legislation in a single Act. It is vital work but often unrecognised. There is also the process of restatement, when Dáil debate is not required, which knits together legislation which merely requires to be laid before the House for 21 days before it becomes law. Clearly that is a faster option. Between consolidation and restatement, a lot of good work is going on in the background in various Departments. Senator Brian Hayes is right to say it is important that the Department of the Taoiseach and the Office of the Attorney General drive this process in which we are involved and provide for better regulation.

It is clear that much good work in the area has also been done in the UK, and we can learn from that. I thank the Senators for their contributions to the debate. It has been relatively short, but that does not suggest in any way that the work we are doing is not of great importance.