I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to be bringing the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024 to the House today. The Bill was introduced in the Seanad on 23 October 2024 and it passed Report and Final Stages in that House on 5 March this year. The Statute Law Revision Bill 2024 is the latest in a series of measures that have been enacted to modernise and improve public accessibility of the Statute Book and secondary legislation. It is vital that laws and regulations in Ireland are both fit for purpose and regularly reviewed and updated. The statute law revision programme is Ireland’s national programme to identify obsolete and spent primary and secondary legislation and remove it from Ireland’s Statute Book. The purpose of the programme is to repeal legislation which has ceased to be in force due to change of circumstances or the passage of time and legislation which, while technically in force, is no longer of relevance in practice. There has been a particular need for such revision in Ireland because of our unique legislative past which has left us with a complex stock of legislation, with enactments from the Parliaments of Ireland, England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom as well as our own Oireachtas. The statute law revision programme is already responsible for six distinct but complementary Statute Law Revision Acts between 2005 and 2015, which have successfully repealed all obsolete primary legislation enacted prior to independence and, in addition, have revoked all obsolete secondary legislation made up to 1 January 1821. To date, more than 100,000 pieces of legislation and secondary instruments have been reviewed and either expressly or implicitly repealed under the programme. This Bill, when enacted, together with the six previous Statute Law Revision Acts, will collectively be the most extensive set of repealing measures in the history of the State and the most extensive set of statute law revision measures ever enacted anywhere in the world. The benefits of statute law revision are well documented and include the creation of certainty as to which laws remain in force; the modernisation of the Statute Book; the enhancement of public accessibility to the Statute Book; and the codification or consolidation of the statute law of the State. It is in the public interest to proceed with this Bill as the proposals will assist in reducing the regulatory burden for businesses, industry and citizens by simplifying the complex stock of legislation currently on the Statute Book and this will also help to provide legal clarity. The importance of simplifying this complex stock was noted with approval by the OECD review, Better Regulation in Ireland 2010, which reported that initiatives such as the Statute Law Revision Acts were impressive efforts to address the challenge and improve accessibility. As I said in my opening remarks, the principal purpose of the Bill is to repeal spent and obsolete secondary instruments enacted on or after 1 January 1821 and before 1 January 1861. 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 and sponsored by my Department, of more than 40,000 secondary instruments to ascertain if they were obsolete or were to be repealed or retained. Of those, more than 3,000 will be repealed by the Bill attached to this memorandum and they are listed in Schedule 2. I will outline to the House the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 of the Bill provides definitions for terms used throughout the Bill. Section 2 of the Bill revokes all instruments passed prior to 1 January 1861 other than those retained instruments specified in the first Schedule. These instruments are suitable for revocation because they have no ongoing relevance in this jurisdiction; and-or are spent, which means they have ceased to be in force, or are obsolete, that is they deal with a subject matter which no longer exists, which has been superseded by subsequent legislation or which is no longer regulated by legislation. The instruments set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 were formerly set out at reference numbers 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule 1 to the Statute Law Revision Act 2015. This latter Schedule retained 43 instruments. Forty of these instruments were names and arms instruments. The Law Reform Commission conducted further research in recent weeks which revealed that these names and arms instruments did not in fact require retention and these are now being revoked. Two of the instruments being retained in Part 2 of Schedule 1 are notices defining the parts of the River Shannon over which the Shannon Commissioners may exercise their powers under the Shannon Navigation Act 1839. These were made pursuant to section 39 of the Shannon Navigation Act 1839, which remains in force. They remain valid for regulatory purposes as they define the parts of the River Shannon to which the Shannon Navigation Act 1839 applied. The revocation in section 2 of the Bill is a general revocation provision which will revoke all instruments made prior to 1 January 1861, even where those instruments are not expressly included in the Schedules. Section 3, for ease of reference, refers to the secondary instruments specified in Schedule 2 which are revoked. There are more than 3,000 instruments listed in the Schedule following the review of all available secondary legislation from 1821 to 1860. Section 4 allows each instrument listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to be officially cited using the citation provided in column (4) of this Schedule. Section 5 provides savings clauses. Sections 5(1) and 5(2) provide that the inclusion of an Act in the Schedule shall not be construed as meaning that the Act, or any provision of it, was of full force and effect immediately before the passing of this Act. Section 6 supplements existing evidence laws, allowing for prima facie evidence of instruments made before 1 January 1861 to be presented in courts and legal proceedings by producing a published copy from specified sources such as the Dublin Gazette or the London Gazette. Section 7 provides a Short Title for this Bill when enacted and collective citation for all the Statute Law Revision Acts to date. Schedule 1 lists the specific instruments that are to be retained. Schedule 2 lists the specific instruments identified in the course of the review as appropriate for repeal at this stage because they have ceased to be relevant or have become unnecessary. In the course of the debate in the Seanad a number of concerns were raised regarding item 1 in Schedule 1, namely, the Genealogical Office Order of 1685. I am happy to inform the House that following engagement by my Department and the Law Reform Commission with the Senator who raised this, Senator Boyhan, as well as the Genealogical Society of Ireland and the director of the National Library, these concerns have been addressed. I will be bringing amendments on Committee Stage to revoke the 1685 order. I thank Senator Boyhan for his work on the Bill as well as those who engaged with me in the Seanad on this. We had a real example of meaningful engagement with both me and officials in my Department as well as the Law Reform Commission regarding the appropriateness of retaining this order on the Statute Book. It is a really good example of practical and respectful engagement between Ministers and Members of the Oireachtas to address concerns and strengthen the legislative process. This Bill, as Members will have gathered, is rather technical but it is really important and necessary. It represents another step in the journey to clarifying and simplifying the Statute Book. This Bill’s enactment will deliver benefits because it will facilitate the process of public governance reform, reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and citizens, ensure our Statute Book is significantly more modern and enhance public access to the laws that govern our people as they go about their business in their daily lives. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sentiment score: 0.16

Revoke.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Before I begin my closing remarks, I would like to thank the Members who participated in this debate. It has been a really informed and thoughtful discussion. Deputy Cathal Crowe mentioned that I was taking copious notes. I will paraphrase some comments. Deputy Farrell said that this body of work has afforded us all a trip down memory lane, and it really has. Deputy Ó Murchú said this was an important piece of legislative housekeeping, which I thought was quite good terminology. Deputy Ó Snodaigh's passion for history really shines when he talks about particular incidents that have been captured in legislation. Often that goes as far back as Famine times, as Deputy Mattie McGrath has said. He also spoke about the impact these laws had at the time and on our own Irish history but also the impact they had on other countries in terms of the spread of our diaspora. He mentioned Australia in particular. Only last week I was in Australia as part of the Government's St. Patrick's Day programme and had the opportunity to meet many descendants of people from that time, Irish people over there. The Deputy is right that many of these laws were the catalyst that led to this situation. Deputy Ó Snodaigh had a question about the laws that were not going to be revoked. Section 1 provides that the instruments are all going to be revoked, unless they are actually named as what will be retained. Some 37,000 were already identified as obsolete as part of this body of work. The vast majority of these are all being revoked. Deputy Robert O'Donoghue said that we are considered world leaders when it comes to updating our statute books. I think that is really valid. It is probably because we needed to be, as Ireland has a unique legislative past that has left us with laws from the passage of parliaments in Ireland, England, Great Britain and the UK as well as our Oireachtas. Deputy Gibney correctly called out the important role our Law Reform Commission plays in carrying out public service. Many of our colleagues today have acknowledged the incredible, painstaking work it has done. Deputy Connolly also commended the Library and Research Service publication that has provided us with a summary of that detailed work. Deputy Malcolm Byrne had two very interesting thoughts. One related to the Sinnott family and the amnesty he spoke about. The Sinnott family and his constituents might benefit from knowing that scans of each order in full are now available on the Law Reform Commission website. It is to be hoped that is a trip down their own memory lane. Regarding his comments on commercial rates, and the fact that they are legally established on 200-year-old laws, I fully appreciate where he is coming from. Given my former role as a Minister of State in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I understand we have a changing landscape when it comes to how business is being done. Perhaps that needs to be examined. That would be a matter for the Minister for local government. Deputy Cathal Crowe suggested posthumous pardons for people who were killed by laws that are now obsolete. Deputy McGuinness referred to such cases as attempts to criminalise acts of survival. In many cases, that is what they were. To be totally frank, I do not know whether that is possible or how big a job it would be if it was possible. It is certainly something I will consider and I will work with my colleagues in the Department and Law Reform Commission on that. Deputy Connolly had a specific question on the commencement of legislation and on statutory reviews. That is beyond the scope of the Bill. She made reference to an OECD report. I would like to put on the record that the report referred to the SLRC Acts in Ireland as impressive. We cannot get much higher praise from it than that. Deputy O'Donoghue spoke about the fact that the Bill will reduce the burden on businesses, and I fully agree with him on that. It will have a positive impact. It was interesting to hear from Deputy Ward that 20 years ago he worked on this project under a different guise. I commend him on his work and his interest in this project over the past 20 years. He shows an interest in modernising our statute laws, which is to be commended. I take on board his suggestion regarding the ongoing consolidation of Acts, rather than repealing an Act and introducing it in a more modern form, and having an Act and then an amendment to an Act. He may already be aware that the Law Reform Commission has revised Acts available on its website, of which there are 500 so far. A lot of progress is happening. The Bill we have considered today proposes the revocation of all statutory and prerogative instruments made before 1 January 1861, except for the instruments which will be retained in Schedule 1. As we have all acknowledged, over 40,000 secondary instruments have been reviewed by the Law Reform Commission to ascertain whether they were obsolete or to be repealed or retained. The 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 of the 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 laws and make the Statute Book more intelligible. That will save time and money for those who need to know what laws are enforced and it will make it easier for the public to access justice. Before I conclude, I thank everybody who spent long days and evenings sifting through Ireland's history in our statute book. I thank all Members for their involvement in this debate, in particular Senator Victor Boyhan who worked so collaboratively with us in order to make the change I will introduce. I look forward to further engagement on Committee Stage.

Sentiment score: 0.21