Seanad debates
Thursday, 8 December 2005
Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages.
2:00 pm
Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Tom Kitt. No. 2 is the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004, a Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 103 it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question that the Bill be received for final consideration the Minister may explain the purpose of the Dáil amendments and this is looked on as a report of the Dáil amendment to the Seanad. For the convenience of Senators I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of those amendments. I remind Senators that only the Dáil amendments may be discussed.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In the course of the Bill and its passage through Dáil Éireann I proposed two amendments, which were accepted. These came about as a result of ongoing research in the Office of the Attorney General and following new information from the Departments concerned. I acknowledge the presence of many of the staff who have been assisting us in the Attorney General's office and the work done by them.
In the first amendment the reference to Parliaments and the Statue of Winchester were removed and the reference to "the United Kingdom" was extended to read "the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland", which was the correct title between 1801 and 1922. The reference to Parliaments was deleted because not all the Acts for repeal could properly be said to have been passed by Parliament. Rather, some had emanated from executive authority. This deletion also meant the reference to the Statute of Winchester observance in Ireland, which is a writ, could be listed alongside the other Acts in the Schedule. Accordingly, this amendment also deleted the reference to the Statute of Winchester that had been in section 1(2).
The second amendment is linked to the first in that it altered the Schedule to reflect some of the changes made by virtue of the first amendment and updated the list of Acts for appeal. Ongoing research in the Office of the Attorney General showed that another 16 Acts were suitable for appeal and these were included. However, it came to light that some of these Acts that were included for repeal might still have a modern application. While I am keen to remove as many ancient Acts as possible I am also aware of the need for certainty so where any doubt existed I decided to prudently err on the side of caution. As a result this amendment removed 20 Acts, about which doubts had been expressed, from the Schedule.
The net effect of these two amendments is that the Bill provides for the repeal of 206 old statutes. Although when the Bill was last considered by this House it repealed 218 Acts and the reduction in the number of Acts could be seen as a retrograde step, I assure Senators that the removal of any Act from the Schedule does not preclude its being repealed in the future. I intend to keep all the pre-1922 Acts under review and to repeal them as soon as it is feasible.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is over a year since the Minister of State was in the House on this matter, although the initial Bill was published some time before that, and we welcome him back. As he said, the first amendment relates exclusively to an incorrect reference in one of the Acts concerned and there is no debate about that; we all accept it.
The second amendment refers to an additional number of statutes the Minister of State is putting in the Schedule to revise as obsolete. I understand he has gone from 91 to 219. If we were to wait another year or six months would we find another 50 or 80 pieces of obsolete, inoperable and irrelevant legislation? I pose this question with regard to amendment No. 2.
The Minister of State is correct to pay tribute to the staff of the Office of the Attorney General for the ongoing research and considerable work in recent years in detailing irrelevant legislation in the Statute Book. Is this matter likely to be revisited in future, and will there be, for example, a new statute law revision every 18 months or two years? Will a second version of the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill come before the Houses of the Oireachtas?
It is important that the Statute Book is not only accessible to all citizens and practitioners in the area, but is also user friendly. We referred this time last year to the need to ensure that all of the Statute Book is available in electronic form, where everybody can see its contents. One of the great problems for legislators, particularly on this side of the House, is the manner in which existing principal Acts have been added to in an exponential way.
We will deal with the Social Welfare Bill next week, but this legislation is simply a consolidated piece of legislation which has its basis in the 1950s. Year on year we add or subtract portions from the principal Act. This habit makes it difficult for parliamentarians to see the exact amendments being made by the Government. It does not make the process user-friendly for the citizen who wishes to find out his or her entitlements according to the Statute Book. I would encourage the Minister of State to continue the work ongoing in the Office of the Attorney General of putting the Statute Book in an electronic format and making it as user-friendly as possible to ensure people can see with minimal action on a computer what is meant by the law after 1922.
From a political perspective, this legislation is a long time in the making. I would welcome the Minister of State commenting that this is part of an ongoing process, as the sooner we take away obsolete and irrelevant parts of our Statute Book which have no application in modern society, the better. That would be a good day for both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, to the House. Some weeks ago, I met by chance in the corridor the fine body of researchers involved in this process. I thought to myself these researchers were involved in a terrific task. We spoke at length on this topic the last time it was discussed. Even the titles of the laws are fascinating.
I see the point of the task being carried out. I am taken by Queen Anne, who had 18 children and is mentioned in the Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711. She survived all the children, which was some task by a woman.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If they had all been under six years of age she would have been a real winner.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
She would. Although there was a search for a queen to succeed Anne, Princess Sophia, who was chosen, died the same year as Anne. She did not get to sit over her kingdom either. The Act is regarded as one of the most important Acts in British history. If somebody is to be invited to sit on a country's throne, the legislation would be important. King George I came to the rescue.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We hope the Senator will get a chance to sit on her throne again.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Cassidy would be very upset at that.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator should leave me alone.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is a sensitive part of the Senator's history.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is. In doing research on this subject, it must be fascinating to see how language changes through the centuries. There is a progression from being antiquated and old-fashioned, and yet the representative parliament in London saw fit to bring about legislation for all areas of life that required remedy, change or amelioration.
We talked before about chimney sweeps caught up the chimney, and Santa Claus had better watch out. There was also the Tralee Navigation Loan 1841. I am amazed how quickly in the 19th century the British Parliament worked. A group of landlords might look to get a railroad up and running and it might be in the House of Commons two weeks later as a Bill. Soon it would be law and money provided for it, despite the lack of modern means of communication, be it technology or travelling means. The Parliament went about its business in a quick manner. I see the point of the Minister of State's work on this issue and commend it.
Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Parliament may have had a bush telegraph.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To echo the comments of Senator Brian Hayes, will this be an ongoing process, whereby legislation that is no longer relevant is to be removed from the Statute Book? If this is so, an understandable body of legislation will emerge which will have meaning for people. That would be beneficial. The Minister of State probably did not think this would be part of his job when he began it, but I am sure he enjoys it.
The language is fascinating. For example, the Adulteration of Coffee Act 1718 states that people, "after the roasting of coffee made use of water, grease, butter...whereby the [coffee] is rendered unwholsom and greatly increased in weight to the prejudice of the health of [subjects]". "Rendered" is now a bad word.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Coffee was a precious commodity at the time. We could read out the contents of the laws for some time and be fascinated by them. I will be carrying out work on a lecture basis in January and I intend to bring this list of laws with me and read out how we were governed. I presume at the time we were governed well.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is almost a trivial exercise except an enormous amount of work has gone into it.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is almost like a history lesson.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I commend the Minister of State, his Department and staff. I am not supposed to mention them but they deserve great credit for this work. I thank the Minister of State for this list of laws, and I will hold on to the document.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator should keep it for Christmas afternoon.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will mention some of the laws. I have a question about the Sacrament Act 1547, which dealt with abuses against the Blessed Sacrament. The law was published after the Reformation, so why did an Act of Parliament deal with terminology such as "the Blessed Sacrament" in what was now Protestant England?
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Blessed Sacrament was still part of the Church of England.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am not sure. There were many wobbles and I am not sure where the church had wobbled to at that stage. The matter is a curiosity.
I am fascinated by the history of the Earl of Kildare, as I speak as a native of County Kildare. There are a succession of related revisions, including the Restitution of the Earl of Kildare 1495, which was followed by the Attainder of the Earl of Kildare 1534. This story is almost like a Mickey Spillane work. The Earl of Kildare, Silken Thomas, was excommunicated for the murder of his enemy, a rebellion instigated by him was crushed, and Silken Thomas was hanged in London with five of his uncles, aged 24. It was grim justice.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Garret Mór was restored as ruler of Ireland in 1487, and just over 40 years later his son was hanged.
It is pity that some of the laws cannot be kept on the Statute Book without fear of them having an effect.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Apart from the obligation of tidying up, what legal force did any of these laws have? Is there a secret fear in the depths of some Department that somebody will use them? There was allegedly a student in Trinity College, Dublin, who demanded a glass of sherry, wine or ale with his examinations because of a statute in the college. He was told he was not wearing his sword so he would have to leave the examination. Do these elements, which could cause problems in the future, exist or is it simply an exercise in tidying up?
In principle, it is time we moved on from written law to electronic law. This would be a cause of great relief because amendments would be inserted into the formal electronic text and people would not be forced to chase legislation through 14 different Bills to find the desired amendment.
The Irish Medicines Board (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2005, where five different searches have been necessitated by the amendment of five different pieces of legislation, is a classic example of this. I welcome the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Bill 2004 and compliment those who produced a Bill containing fascinating snippets of our history.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I discovered that Queen Mary was retrospectively declared legitimate.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The House of Lords Precedence Act of 1539 concerned seating arrangements in the House of Lords and the position of Thomas Cromwell. Would the Leader consider introducing the same kind of strategic seating arrangements for the Independent benches as they are necessary?
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is always enjoyable to have debates in this House, which are probably conducted in a more relaxed fashion than in other areas of our democratic system.
Brendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They could not have a row about this Bill in the Dáil.
Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We could not do so if we tried, however, we could have said Queen Mary was illegitimate.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It contrasts with the debate in the other House this morning but that is democracy in action. I thank the Senators for their appreciation of the work carried out on this Bill and echo their sentiments regarding our research team.
The Senators expressed an interest in the electronic database, which is being examined in the Office of the Attorney General. This Bill is a tidying-up operation and has involved very interesting work. The Senators were correct in highlighting certain pieces of legislation and I thank them for commenting on the data made available to them. The snippets of legislation referred to by Senators give us a cameo of what took place at a given time in Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland.
Much more work needs to be done on this issue. We have taken a piecemeal approach to repealing legislation, which has been the traditional approach to statute law revision. The Bill was prepared in 2004. My last appearance before this House was in May 2005.
Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise for mixing it up with the Interpretation Bill 2000.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have come back to the House as quickly as possible. Since the publication of the Bill, a new project has commenced in the Office of the Attorney General to devise a comprehensive catalogue of all pre-1922 legislation, with a view to enacting more comprehensive repealing legislation. The next statute law revision Bill will reflect this new approach. However, this does not affect the validity of the traditional approach and the new project will be helped by the passage of this Bill, which will sweep away over 200 Acts.
Some statutes pre-dating independence cannot simply be repealed, even with the use of a new and more comprehensive model of statute law revision. This is because they contain provisions which are still relevant. If these Acts are to be repealed, these relevant provisions must be replaced with modern provisions. This is the reason Acts such as the Statute of Frauds Act 1695 will not be repealed under this Bill. This Act still governs the law of contract and although it is suitable for re-enacting in modern format, it must be replaced rather than repealed.
Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators for their support for this Bill. Statute law revision may not be the most eye-catching project but it is important work and I am gratified that Senators have given their time and interest to it. Their contributions to the debate as the Bill passed through all Stages demonstrate their belief that we are engaging in a vital endeavour, although there may be no one out there listening to us. If we are serious about having a modern democracy, we need to remove antiquated and obsolete laws which were not made by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I acknowledge the work done by my officials. Identifying those Acts that still apply to Ireland and ascertaining if they are suitable for repeal are complex tasks.
The work does not cease with this Bill, which is the first important step in a phased programme of measures. Once this Bill is enacted, the Taoiseach will bring a memorandum to Government for a second statute law revision Bill, which will take a different approach to that used in the Bill before us. The model for the new phase is that of a white list. This is a list of those statutes made before 1800 which are to be retained so we are taking a positive approach to the matter. It will be a positive statement of those laws which are to remain in force. All other laws from this period will then be repealed. This approach will build on the work we are carrying out today.
Repealing many more statutes will provide greater certainty. I will be depending on Senators' continued support for this next phase in 2006. There is a considerable amount of work to do to get to the point where our Statute Book is clear and up to date. Our system of statutory law should comply with the most elementary requirements of any system in that it should be possible to ascertain whether a particular statute is in force and, if so, what its general effect is without undue difficulty. The Bill before us today is the first significant step in that direction.