Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, and thank her for being here.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are related. Amendment No. 1 forms a composite proposal with amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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 This Bill will also repeal those instruments enacted before 1 January 1821 that are still in force and were not repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 2015.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 The review scrutinised more than 40,000 secondary instruments to ascertain if they were obsolete or were to be repealed or retained. Of those, 3,367 will be repealed by the Bill and are listed in Schedule 2.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.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of clarification, we are on amendments Nos. 1 and 3.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were listed here.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is amendments Nos. 1 and 3. The Senator can talk on it.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back on it if the Cathaoirleach wants.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are related, so the Senator can address those together.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Cathaoirleach want me to finish up on amendment No. 2?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on amendment No. 1 at the moment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back. Let us deal with amendment No. 1.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 and 3.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not talking about amendment No. 3. I indicated that I would talk about amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I will come back to talk about amendment No. 2

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are looking at amendments Nos. 1 and 3 being related, which is why we are discussing them together. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are related and we will discuss them together next.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will park that. I have not gone into it. That is fine.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Boyhan want to discuss amendment No. 3 now?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy not to discuss amendment No. 3.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back on that. I thank the Minister of State. One of the great things about this debate is that it puts all of this on the record, which is really important because it is a bit sketchy. Clearly, the Minister of State has the advice and I am very happy to take on board all of that. I am not an expert on genealogy by any stretch of the imagination, but this was an issue that was raised with me and there seems to be more than some logic in it. The Minister of State used the word "uninterrupted". Yes, it might be uninterrupted, but we are in a Republic. There has been no mention in the Minister of State's response about the fact that we operate and live in a Republic. Is there really a place for this in the Republic? Let us keep the language here simple because, as I always say, the public are listening in and this will be reported in Oireachtas reports on television, radio and wherever. People are hugely interested in these things and people will be scratching their heads and asking why we are keeping this when we have a Republic and where it goes.

I am also conscious, although I am not going to dwell too much on it, that this Bill was initiated in this House. Therefore, the Bill will make its trajectory from here to the Dáil, where I know from speaking to a number of TDs yesterday that it is their intention to give this Bill very fine scrutiny. That is good and it is important we flag that with the Minister of State's Department and officials, because it gives them time to engage. I will certainly be encouraging the people who engage with me to engage with the Department and the Minister of State's officials because we want to tease out any ambiguity and we want greater clarity on what the issues are.

The Minister of State referred to the 1997 Act, which reflects on that position. I have come here to make the case that this amendment should go onto Schedule 2, rather than being taken away. Schedule 2 details the revoked instruments, and it can stay there. It does not have to be obliterated. The Minister of State and her officials have moved a number of sections from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, and there may very well be a case. I accept the Minister of State's officials cannot make a decision here and now on the floor of this House, but they might reflect on that when it goes to the Dáil. Is there another way of dealing with this so that it could be put on Schedule 2 for revocation, as with a whole load of other aspects the Minister of State's officials have advised to be put on it?

There is a bit of explaining and simplification to be done here. I hear what the Minister of State is saying and I take the view that we should proceed here, but I am also conscious that this is not the end of it and it will have another life further down the line. That is just some feedback on the Minister of State's contribution.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. To reiterate, the Office of the Chief Herald was established in 1943 as a mechanism to fold the office into the Irish State. Two separate orders happened to that. That is where it became part of our more modern history as we entered into our Republic.

I appreciate where the Senator is coming from in his comments on Schedule 2 and potential revocation. That is something we could look at in a little bit more detail, but to reiterate, if we were to do that here and now, we do not have any legal clarity on what that would mean for the Office of the Chief Herald, which is in existence today. That is the issue there. It is something we can take away and look at. As the Senator said, this Bill was initiated in the Seanad and has yet to move through the Dáil. Therefore, it is something we can look at at that point.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In light of what the Minister of State has said and the fact that there will be another Stage of the Bill next week, I will withdraw the amendment, take some further advice and have another opportunity to come in here next week. We will all have another opportunity to have a chat and we can pursue it on the next Stage. I will not pursue the amendment at this point.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are related and amendment No. 2 forms a composite proposal with amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are regarding Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Bill. These are technical amendments which remove the instrument known as Smuggling Order 1807 from Schedule 1 of the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024, instruments to be retained. The purpose of this order was to allow for the payment of rewards to soldiers who assisted customs officers in making any seizures of prohibited or uncustomed goods during the Napoleonic Wars.

This instrument was originally retained in statute law when we revised it in 2015, and following the Second Stage debate, the Law Reform Commission carried out further research on the appropriateness of including the order in Schedule 1 of the Bill. The Law Reform Commission has now recommended that the order be removed from Schedule 1 and instead be included in Schedule 2, which is the list of instruments to be revoked that Senator Boyhan spoke about. It is a technical amendment. It does not fundamentally change the Bill in any way and is not an amendment to policy. Following on from this amendment, our position is that Smuggling Order 1807 should be included in Schedule 2, instruments to be revoked.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 3, in the name of Senator Boyhan, cannot be moved as it was already discussed with amendment No. 1.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5 to 19, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 21, 22, 26, 36, 85 and 88, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are minor technical amendments about replacing the phrase "Parliament of Parliament" with the correct legal term, "Prorogation of Parliament" throughout Schedule 2. These amendments do not in any way fundamentally change the Bill. They are not amendments to policy in any way. They are technical minor amendments.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a minor amendment to rectify a technical error.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, 27 to 35, inclusive, 37 to 84, inclusive, 86, 87 and 89 to 102, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are very minor technical amendments. They are typographical amendments that were recommended by the Law Commission. They do not fundamentally change the Bill in any way or the policy behind the Bill. They are merely technical.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Members for their co-operation and their input into this Bill. The Bill we considered here today proposes the revocation of all statutory and prerogative instruments made before 1 January 1861, except for five instruments, which will be retained. More than 40,000 secondary instruments were reviewed by the Law Reform Commission to ascertain whether they were obsolete or whether they needed to be repealed or retained.That was a huge body of work and I thank everybody involved in that. This Bill is the seventh statute law revision Bill in a programme the aim of which is to ensure that Ireland has a modern and accessible Statute Book. Tidying up all our spent and obsolete secondary instruments made between 1 January 1821 and 1 January 1861 will contribute significantly towards improving the overall regulatory environment in Ireland. It will simplify and modernise our law and make the Statute Book more intelligible. It will save time and money for those who need to know what laws are enforced and will make it easier for people to access justice. This Bill will mean that all primary legislation up to the formation of the State will have been reviewed and the next step is to review all secondary legislation. This is about transparency for our laws and digitalising and giving more people access to the laws that govern our society. I thank everybody for their involvement in the Bill to date.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.