Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2002

Vol. 555 No. 3

Statute Law (Restatement) Bill, 2000 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin)

Ar son an Taoisigh agus an Árd-Aighne ba maith liomsa an Bille seo a chur os comhair na Dála.

The purpose of this short Bill is to confer on the Attorney General power to make available versions of Acts of the Oireachtas in more readable form. These updated versions, to be known as restatements, will not in any way alter the substance of the law, but will make it easier to follow as a coherent narrative. Once a restatement has been certified by the Attorney General under this Bill it may be cited in court as prima facie evidence of the legislation contained in it.

The background to the Bill is the need to take steps to modernise the Statute Book. Every year some 50 to 60 Acts are enacted, many of which amend previous Acts, and users of statutes will be familiar with the problem of having to consult several Acts in order to identify a particular point of law. The continued amendment of Acts makes them difficult to follow and the restatement process is designed to ease the burden on users.

The need to modernise the Statute Book was recognised by the Government in June 1999 in the document Reducing Red Tape – An Action Programme for Regulatory Reform in Ireland. This programme was based on the report of the strategic management initiative's working group on regulatory reform and is aimed at improving the quality of regulation through a process of consolidation, revision and repeal. The programme required each Department and office to identify the scope for consolidation and repeal of primary and secondary legislation. The aim was to simplify, wherever possible, the process of doing business with Government and to make legislation more coherent and accessible. As a result of this report, consultations have taken place among the Department of the Taoiseach, the statute law revision unit in the Office of the Attorney General and Departments and offices to identify areas of statute in need of revision and consolidation. In addition, the recent OECD report entitled Regulatory Reform in Ireland stated that the enactment of the Statute Law (Restatement) Bill and its full application is an important step towards enhancing the Irish regulatory framework.

The development of a comprehensive programme of statute revision and consolidation is a complex and time consuming process which will be facilitated by making restatements. The Law Reform Commission consultation paper, Statutory Drafting and Interpretation: Plain Language and the Law, provisionally recommended that priority should be given to the consolidation of statutes, in order to facilitate readability.

The commission also recommended that "attention should be given to the updating of older legislation, and its re-drafting in modern language and format". That theme was repeated in the final report of the Law Reform Commission, Statutory Drafting and Interpretation Plain Language and the Law, and there was a reference to the importance of consolidation to maintain accessibility of the law.

The problem of the untidy state of the Statute Book has not been addressed by the State. In other common law states there are policies to have regular revision with the result that the laws in Canada and Australia, for example, are made more accessible through regular programmes of revision. The need for a policy to modernise the Statute Book and make it more coherent and accessible was recognised also in the consultation document, Towards Better Regulation, which was issued by the Department of the Taoiseach in February of this year. As part of an initial programme to make statute law more accessible, the Attorney General advised the Government that it would be helpful to introduce legislation under which the Attorney General may prepare versions of Acts of the Oireachtas in a more readable form without altering their substance.

Variations on the restatement idea operate effectively in other common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada and Australia. The model proposed in the Bill is most closely analogous to the procedures in place in New South Wales since 1972 and Queensland since 1992. These procedures enable legislation which has been amended to be reprinted so that legislation can always be read as an updated, coherent narrative. What is proposed under this Bill is that the Attorney General will be able to publish a certified version of the text of an Act incorporat ing any amendments made by subsequent Acts into one up to date statement of the Act.

The proposed process is most easily explained by reference to an example. The Sale of Goods Act, 1893, was amended by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980. In order to understand the law relating to the sale of goods, two sources must be consulted. Once the Restatement Bill is enacted the Attorney General may publish the Sale of Goods Acts, 1893 and 1980 in a restated form so that one readable text may be consulted. Textual amendments, that is, amendments which replace text in the Act of 1893 with new text taken from the Act of 1989, will be set out so that the Act of 1893 may be read as amended. Where provisions are repealed, they will not appear but a brief note or explanation will be provided so that the reader of the Sale of Goods Acts, 1893 and 1980, will be able to read all the relevant statute law in the one text. In addition, where appropriate, statutory instruments may be included in a restatement. This exercise will then pave the way for the ultimate revision of statute law and the replacement of old Acts with new more readable formats.

A policy of restatement will be useful for Acts that have been consolidated and subsequently amended. For example, the excellent work undertaken in relation to the consolidation of Income Tax Acts, Stamp Duties Acts and Capital Gains Taxes Acts and successive efforts to consolidate social welfare law will be supplemented by restatement so that consolidation Acts that are subsequently amended may be kept up to date. It is important to stress that a restatement will not amend existing legislation. For that reason the process of restatement will not require parliamentary scrutiny. The Attorney General, in consultation with the relevant Minister, will be empowered to reprint groups of Acts of the Oireachtas in a more accessible form. Section 4 expressly confirms that a restatement will not alter the substance of any Act or statutory instrument. However, to ensure that the Houses of the Oireachtas are aware of progress under the Act, restatements will be laid before the Houses when they are certified by the Attorney General.

Section 5 provides that, once certified by the Attorney General under this Bill, a restatement may be cited in court as prima facie evidence of the legislation contained in it. Therefore, a court may take notice of a restatement without formal proof. This provision ensures that a restatement will be of practical use to the citizen. This initiative, together with regular updating of statute law on CD-ROM and making statutes available on the Internet, will go a long way towards providing a modern, user friendly Statute Book.

Those are the main provisions in the Bill. The innovation provided for is important and timely. I commend the Bill to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before I call Deputy Durkan, I refer to Standing Order 119(3) which deals with sharing time for the opening speech on Second Stage. It states: "Unless the Dáil shall otherwise order, the speech of the member of the Government or Minister of State proposing the motion for the second reading of the Bill, and the main spokesperson nominated by each of the groups, as defined in Standing Order 114, shall not exceed thirty minutes in each case and the member of the Government or Minister of State proposing, or such other member as he or she may authorise in that behalf, shall be entitled to not less than fifteen minutes for a speech in reply; and the speech of any other member in the course of the debate shall not exceed twenty minutes. If Members want to share time, it must be with the permission of the House."

Mr. Durkan

It is, therefore, an appropriate time to ask that question. I wish to share time with Deputy Ring.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed?

Ms O'Sullivan

Yes, in this case, but it is not a precedent.

Mr. Durkan

That is understood. I welcome the proposal to modernise the Statute Book. The legislation is technical and it will be more technical when it becomes operational. Anything which makes the law more understandable must be applauded. When I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts an evaluation was done of the interpretation of the law and of the language used in Acts. People, particularly those who do not have a legal mind, would need a great deal of time to figure out what is meant by certain phrases. I welcome the Bill which will make the law more understandable.

I welcome the fact that gender proofing, which was previously resisted, is provided for in this legislation. I note the reference to "his" and "her". The word "her" did not exist at one time.

Ms Hanafin

It existed, but it was not recognised.

Mr. Durkan

The word "his" was used for "his" and "her". It did not matter how often we argued that point, we were always told it meant the same thing. We have now proven after all these years that "his" and "her" are two separate entities which are finally recognised in the legislation. That is a positive step which recognises the times in which we live. It is better than referring to the old statutes.

I am worried about a couple of pitfalls. There will always be difficulties in any translation of languages or Acts. There will always be grounds for people to take a challenge. The Minister of State said and the Bill states that the interpretation will not have the force of law. However, it may be referred to and it may be noted in courts and debates. However, those who translate the legislation into the modern version could have a problem with its interpretation. The Attorney General shall have the right to delegate to various officers the power to update the language in the legislation. However, regardless of how well qualified the person is, it will ultimately be subject to interpretation by the courts, including the High Court and the Supreme Court. If it is found that a gap exists between what was intended in the original legislation and the interpretation of the revised modern version, in other words, the readable version, the original Act will prevail. This area requires further clarification as it leaves room for a happy hunting ground for the legal eagles. While I do not blame the legal profession for exploiting such happy hunting grounds, they are already sufficient in number.

The proposal makes the law more understandable for the general public and the people affected by it. I note the Minister of State's reference to the statutory instruments and regulations, which can dramatically affect the import and impact of a statute. I hope, therefore, that in all cases the modernised, readable version of the law will take into account the impact of the regulations and the fact that regulations are in many cases subject to change. Other than laying them before the House, such change often occurs without the approval of the Oireachtas being sought.

I agree with the theory underlying the decision by Canada and other countries to modernise their legislation. Some of our legislation dates back several centuries. Oddly, it still holds good, whereas some of our modern law appears to have run into difficulties. The Companies Act, 1990, which we spent 18 months examining on Committee Stage in order to fireproof it against all eventualities, is a case in point. It did not succeed and was found in light of subsequent events to be quite porous. While we may feel an Act covers all eventualities, this may not prove to be the case. The moral of this finding in terms of all updated and upcoming legislation is that the more complicated the legislation and the more avenues it attempts to cover, the more gaps it creates. Although that seems to be a contradiction, it is a fact. The simpler the Act, the more embracing it is. The danger is that legislation may prove to be punitive or harsh in certain circumstances. While this legislation is laudable in that it attempts to update and modernise old Acts, it could have a propensity to run into difficulties.

The Minister alluded to the reference in the Bill to the certified version of the text. I presume this text will be similar in appearance to a Land Registry certification map and folio and will be quoted and used as if it were the original Act. Will it be allowed for conveyancing purposes? To what extent will it be acceptable to and used by the legal profession, having regard to the fact that while it can be noted in the courts, the original version will continue to have the force of law? Will the modern, updated version be assumed to have an identical meaning to that of the original Act, for example, for conveyancing purposes? I am sure my colleague, Deputy Ring, who has con siderable knowledge of the business of conveyancing, wishes to address this matter.

It would be great if we could modernise all our legislation, give it recent vintage and move it into the 21st century. Given the success of other countries in addressing this task, why can we not do it? I accept there are two sides to this story. The swings and roundabouts, its positives and negatives, lie in the fact that although one can improve some Acts, one can also damage previously sound law. I can recall several recent Acts where this has occurred. I ask that the appropriate commission consider the possibility of drawing up a list of Acts now in everyday use to ascertain the extent to which they can be modernised. As we are all aware, much of our legislation long predates the establishment of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Ring

I welcome the Bill, the most important to come before the House. There are 166 Members of the House and unless one is a barrister or solicitor, professions which are making enough money as it is from the tribunals and other matters, one has difficulty understanding legislation. I often wondered why legislation was framed in legal language. I realise the reason is to make money for the boys and girls in the legal profession. They have acquired considerable wealth as a result of Acts enacted by this House for the simple reason that the general public and around 95% of Members do not understand their contents. As an Opposition spokesperson, who is neither a solicitor nor barrister, I must seek external, expert advice in order to understand legislation introduced in the House because Members are not provided with sufficient resources to do so internally. With just one secretary, no access to legal advice and no one to help me understand the contents of legislation, I am obviously very pleased with the Bill.

At times, Members do not become aware of the contents of legislation until it is challenged in the courts or by people outside the House. It is only then that they realise what it is they have passed, by which time it is too late to contribute in the House on it. Perhaps Members, particular those on the Government benches, would even have refused to pass laws if they had known of their contents. While I welcome the Bill as a necessary step, I ask the Minister to go further.

Every Member has encountered problems getting Ministers to answer parliamentary questions. Why can they not answer the question they are asked? Why do they use legal jargon to avoid answering questions? They do everything but answer the question they are asked. Many of them must be receiving training to appear on television. The first thing Ministers and civil servants are told when appointed is not to answer questions. If questions were answered, we would not have half the problems. Why do Ministers not want to give information? This is a democracy not a dictatorship. Why can civil servants when drafting questions for Ministers not tell it as it is, even if it is unkind or unpleasant? People can take the good with the bad. Why should Deputies have to go through replies to parliamentary questions to check what, if anything, is being answered? Nine times out of ten Ministers do not answer the question asked. They throw out different versions in legal terms, which is not fair to Members.

I welcome this Bill because there is nothing wrong with explaining the law. It is a good move and must be complimented. It will give the general public an understanding of the law and people will know what is being brought before the Dáil.

Legal eagles have made their money over the years out of legislation brought before this House, as much of this legislation was challenged and brought to the Supreme Court. Now that we will know what legislation will come before the House and have an understanding of it, the days of depending on the legal eagles to advise us on it will be over, which is a step in the right direction.

I hope the Minister of State will continue to move in this direction by ensuring that parliamentary questions will be answered. They should be answered all year round. The position in that regard this year was unfair to the staff of this House, particularly the staff in the questions office and the office of the Minister of State. The election was held on 17 May and called a number of weeks prior to that. The House was dissolved and we were not able to get answers to parliamentary questions until last week, which was outrageous. Parliamentary questions should be answered even when this House is not sitting. That would ensure that the staff of this House would not suffer as they suffered in recent weeks with the burden of work involved in every Member tabling a number of parliamentary questions, the answers to which they have had to await for months. Certain sections, which I will not name, go on holidays once the Dáil goes on holidays, and they will not answer any questions from Members. When the parliamentary questions are tabled two or three weeks prior to the Dáil resuming, we have action from all the Departments. That is another matter that should be examined. Parliamentary questions should be answered all year round. That would be a saving to the staff of these Houses. The current position is not fair to them. They do an excellent job under difficult circumstances, on which I must compliment them. If parliamentary questions were answered all year round, on the day the Dáil resumes, whether after the summer or some other recess, the staff would not have to deal with thousands of questions, as happened last week. It is not humanly possible for the staff to do that.

I am glad this and future legislation that will come before this House will be explained in lay person's language. I and, I am sure, the general public will welcome that. Constituents often ask for legislation that was passed and, on receiving it, they ring saying they do not understand it. That has happened over the years. Therefore, this legislation must be welcomed and I hope it will work. I hope the Minister of State will take up with the other Whips at a future meeting the points I raised, particularly regarding parliamentary questions. I ask the Minister of State to tell civil servants and Ministers to answer the questions they are asked, to do so in lay person's language and not to try to avoid answering them. This is a democracy not a dictatorship.

Mr. Sargent

I wish to share my time with Deputies Ferris and Connolly.

Acting Chairman (Mr. O'Shea)

Is that agreed?

Ms O'Sullivan

No, it is not. The intention of the statement read by the Ceann Comhairle at the start of this debate was that a spokesperson for each group in the House should speak on a Second Stage debate. The intention was that there would be one voice from each group. That is why I did not object to the Fine Gael Party sharing time because I assume its members have the same opinion on legislation. However, I cannot make the same assumption about the technical group. I am not being petty about this. I am interpreting the intention of the regulation. I object to the sharing of time at this Stage, as each Member will have a chance to speak. It is not appropriate that five members of one group should speak—

Mr. Sargent

Three.

Ms O'Sullivan

—before any one member of a group, which is only one number short of their grouping, and these five members may have totally opposing views on this legislation.

Mr. Sargent

What we are dealing with is a level of reasonableness under Standing Orders, which provides for the Deputy to speak after this group.

Ms O'Sullivan

I do not have a problem with that.

Mr. Sargent

If Fine Gael, with the agreement of the House, was allowed to have two speakers, it seems completely reasonable to the world outside that there should not be a reason speakers from each of three constituent groups in the technical group could not share time. There are three constituent groups in the technical group – that is a fact of life. I ask the House to acknowledge that and allow business to proceed because, unfortunately, as the Deputy is aware, there will not be time for everyone to speak on this debate. There is a time limit to these debates.

Ms Hanafin

There is no time limit.

Mr. Allen

There is no time limit. The Ceann Comhairle read the relevant Standing Order at the start of this debate. I put the question to the Ceann Comhairle if it was possible to share time. He reiterated that was possible with the agree ment of the House. If there is not the agreement of the House to do so, it is not possible for Members to share time when the first round speakers are contributing at this Stage. That is my interpretation of the Standing Order. There should not be a difficulty; either there is agreement that Members may share time or there is not. It is up to Members to decide.

Mr. Sargent

We are being put in a position where I would have to take Deputy Ferris's script—

Ms O'Sullivan

Deputy Ferris can read his own script.

Mr. Sargent

—and read it and Deputy Connolly ought to give me his script and I would also read it. That would be a way of proceeding, but it is petty to put us in that position when this is simply a matter of hearing what has to be said. Surely it would be of benefit to the legislation for our views to be heard.

Ms O'Sullivan

Deputy Ferris will have an opportunity to speak for himself.

Acting Chairman

I have given the Deputy a fair amount of time on this. I am ruling on this matter. The Standing Order on this issue is clear. If there is not the agreement of the House for Members to share time, there will be one speaker from the technical group and, in this case, the speaker with be Deputy Sargent.

Mr. Sargent

My colleagues may have something to say on this matter.

Mr. J. Breen

On a point of order, if we do not agree with that, what happens? Under Standing Orders we are entitled to be represented in this House and I am surprised Deputy O'Sullivan objected to our sharing time. We are entitled, under Standing Orders, as a group to be represented in this House and I see nothing wrong with sharing time. Fine Gael members have shared time on this debate and that was allowed. I ask the Acting Chairman to rule that we should be allowed to share time. If we do not agree on this matter, what happens?

Acting Chairman

That is the Deputy's view, but I am bound by Standing Orders and I must proceed as I outlined.

Mr. J. Breen

Even if—

Acting Chairman

I am not allowing any further debate on this matter. I have ruled on it. I am bound by Standing Orders. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

Mr. J. Breen

May I ask a supplementary question on a point of order?

Acting Chairman

Yes, a short question, but after that I am not allowing any further debate on this matter.

Mr. J. Breen

If the groups in this House do not agree with the Chair's ruling, what happens? Who should we approach?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy can take the matter up with the Ceann Comhairle's office or refer it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. Ferris

Acting Chairman—

Acting Chairman

There can be no further debate on this matter. Deputy Sargent has the floor.

Mr. Ferris

Two Deputies spoke previously and they shared time.

Mr. Allen

With the agreement of the House.

Mr. Ferris

This is blatant discrimination against Sinn Féin, the Greens and the technical group.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should resume his seat and I will deal with the matter. That sharing of time proceeded on the basis that it had the agreement of the House, but in this instance the sharing of time does not have the agreement of the House. Therefore, I am bound by the Standing Order. I am not allowing any further debate on this matter. I call Deputy Sargent.

Mr. Ferris

I strongly object to the Acting Chairman's ruling.

Acting Chairman

That is noted.

Mr. Connolly

I ask Deputy O'Sullivan to reconsider her decision. I take on board her views and comments, but this is a matter that could best be dealt with by the Whips. We have been dropped in it.

Acting Chairman

Will the Deputy please resume his seat so that we can continue with the debate.

Mr. Connolly

It is unfair of the Labour Party to drop us in it at this stage. We all have comments to make on the Bill.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will have an opportunity to do that.

Mr. Sargent

It is ironic that we are here to discuss the Statute Law (Restatement) Bill, 2000, which is about modernising and making legislation more accessible to the wider public. In the course of this debate we are dragging up a Standing Order which is going in the opposite direction and tries to shut down the opinions of smaller parties.

Ms O'Sullivan

That is rubbish.

Mr. Sargent

That is exactly what it is doing. I am saying this in context and I ask that I can say it without interruption.

Acting Chairman

As long as it is relevant.

Mr. Sargent

The Acting Chairman will have to hear me before he can decide that.

Yesterday we had a debate which addressed the conflict in the North. It is worth comparing our legislation to that in the North in the context of this Bill. There is a more modern outlook on democracy, at least in so far as smaller groups get a say, north of the Border. That speaks volumes about the attitude of the legislature to representing the diversity of democratically represented views in Parliament.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should refer to the Bill under debate.

Mr. Sargent

I have been referring to the Bill and will continue to do so. The Bill is innocuous in its aims. Who could object to legislation being made more readable, gender-proofed and more accessible in general? There are other questions that have not been raised or answered so far in the debate. What is the exact reason for the Bill being before us other than for giving employment to those who will be involved in the re-drafting or simplifying of legislation? I would not underestimate the employment that would give, but that is probably only one of a number of reasons and I would like to hear all of them.

What will be the cost of following through on the enormous body of legislation? What is contemplated here is not just legislation which has gone through the Oireachtas since Independence, but legislation that was put on the Statute Book prior to that. I recently had reason to look at the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. The language is quaint and historic but it is ancient in its relevance to many of today's issues.

This Bill anticipates an enormous body of legislation. Has a priority list been drawn up? There are many waiting lists for both new legislation and legislation to be amended. There is also a long waiting list for legislation that has yet to be translated, mainly from English to Irish. I know it has been difficult to find the resources to deal with that.

Cuireann sé íonadh orm go bhfuilimid ag caint faoi tuilleadh oibre dá leithéid a dhéanamh nuair nach bhfuil an obair atá beartaithe a dhéanamh curtha i gcrích go fóill. An bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire Stáit an gcuirfidh an obair a bhéas le déanamh de bharr an Bhille seo isteach ar an obair atá le déanamh cheana le fada an lá agus nach bhfuil déanta go fóill.

The Minister of State might indicate whether priority will be given to the type of legislation which is effectively composite in the sense that they comprise principal Acts, amendments, repeal Acts and quite an amount of documentation pertaining to one area of law. For example, the liquor licensing laws are so multi-faceted that there is certainly a case for giving them priority, repealing the late opening hours in the process. That needs to be stated, otherwise there is a danger that another industry will be set up, perhaps as a section of the Attorney General's office, which will be academically interesting but may drain considerable resources from the work which should be taking place, as we in the Oireachtas are well aware. The speed at which legislation needs to come through and the necessary levels of translation facilities do not exist. What will be prioritised and what will suffer, if anything, through the enactment and implementation of this legislation?

Ironically, this legislation is before us at a time when the public is trying to come to terms with legislation which they have no choice but to have some level of understanding of, namely, the amendments that are to take place to the Constitution to allow for the ratification, or otherwise, of the Nice treaty. Does the Minister of State see a role for this legislation in making EU legislation more readable? I find the Oireachtas legislation reasonably readable in so far as it gets to the point quickly. European Union legislation, however, generally includes a considerable number of pages using words such as "therefore", "thereafter", "heretofore" and other interesting grammatical gymnastics that are not user-friendly. Given that much of the legislation with which we now deal has its genesis in the European Commission, is there any level of co-operation between the Office of the Attorney General and the Commission? Although it has to be transposed into Irish law – making it an Irish law in itself – much of the legislative guidelines we follow are set down in legislation that has not been transposed into Irish law, either by way of European directives or other regulation. That should also be given attention. Perhaps there is a need to deal with this on a European Union basis. Does the Attorney General have any thoughts or proposals in that regard.

Will the Minister of State also indicate whether the Comhairle organisation has been involved in the drafting or promotion of the legislation? It seems logical that it would be involved, given that it operates citizens' information centres where such readable legislation should be available for perusal. I hope there is a plan in place to ensure the new readable form of legislation, when the drafting process is complete, will be distributed. In my view citizens' information centres, libraries, etc., should, first and foremost, have access to the new formats when they become available. It will be interesting to discover if plans have been made in this regard.

I may be playing devil's advocate but I must state that there is a risk of confusion arising if the readable format becomes widely available and begins to take on an importance beyond the prima facie level of importance to which the legislation refers. What contingency plans have been put in place to ensure the readable formats do not cause confusion but instead confer enlightenment? I presume members of the legal profession would like to know the answer to that question, given that it is they who will have to decide which format will provide the basis of the ultimate interpretation of the legislation. I assume the principal Act will take precedence, but if there is a widely available readable format there may be instances where a difference of legal interpretation will arise. There may also be differences in interpretation vis-à-vis the Irish and English formats. Clarification is required before there can be an overall endorsement of the legislation.

Those who use the Irish language format of legislation will also require clarification with regard to whether the readable format will be presented in bilingual form. I refer here to a format where the Irish and English language versions appear taobh le taobh, as opposed to there being an English language common use format and a separate Irish language use format kept in the GPO or the Attorney General's office and available only to people who go to the trouble of trying to find it. I ask the Minister of State to take on board this concern which, I imagine, is widespread among those of us who would like to be able to use Irish more often.

Tuigeann an t-Aire Stáit, mar is bean í a bhfuil Gaeilge aici, go bhfuil go leor daoine a bhfuil suim acu sa teanga ach nach bhfuil líofacht teanga acu, go háirithe ó thaobh téarmaíochta dlí de. Ní mórán cabhair leagan Gaeilge de Bhille a thabhairt dá leithéid de dhaoine, nuair atá siad in amhras faoi théarmaíocht dlí. Nuair atá obair an Bhille seo ar siúl tá súil agam go gcuirfear tús le traidisiún dátheangach, mar atá i dtíortha mar Cheanada, áit a mbíonn an Fhraincis agus an Béarla taobh le taobh, ó thaobh an dlí agus ó thaobh fógraíochta de.

Tá seans againn anois rudaí a dhéanamh i gceart maidir le cearta teanga agus gan an botún céanna a dhéanamh agus a deineadh ins na blianta atá thart, sé sin leagan Gaeilge a bheith le fáil ach é a lorg. Fágann sin go bhfuil an Ghaeilge i bhfolach agus nach bhfuil sí ar fáil ach do dhaoine atá sásta brú a chur agus agóid a dhéanamh chun a gcearta a fháil.

Níl sé soiléir an mbeidh leagan den reachtaíocht le fáil i mBéarla agus i nGaeilge. B'fhéidir gur féidir a leithéid a chur isteach san mBille mar leasú. Ní leor go ndéarfaidh an t-Aire go bhfuil a leithéid i gceist mar caithfear é a bheith soiléir sa reachtaíocht féin. Ní leor a bheith ag braith ar dhea-thoil an Aire mar tá gach seans ann nach mbeidh an dearcadh céanna ag an chéad Aire eile agus nach dtuigfidh sé cad é atá ag teastáil ag daoine cosúil liom féin.

Chun go mbeidh cothrom na Féinne ann ó thaobh an dlí agus ó thaobh teangacha de, impím ar an Aire Stáit an seans seo a thógaint agus an Ghaeilge agus an Béarla a bheith taobh le taobh ins an leagan so-léite atá le foilse faoi théarmái an Bhille seo.

Cé mhéad ama atá fágtha agam?

Acting Chairman

Tá 13 nóiméad fágtha. Bhí leathuair agat ina iomlán.

Mr. Sargent

Níl sé i gceist agam labhairt ar feadh leathuaire mar tá sé i gceist agam mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na príomh-úrlabhraithe sa Ghrúpa Teicniúil. Ní mian liom cur isteach ar an am atá acu, de cheart. Críocnóidh mé anois chun seans a thabhairt dóibh labhairt nó gan labhairt.

Acting Chairman

I call Deputy O'Sullivan.

Ms O'Sullivan

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh,

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ba mhaith liom gearán a dhéanamh. . .

Acting Chairman

I called Deputy O'Sullivan. Níl mé ag tógáint gearáin.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

An bhfuil an Teachta O'Sullivan sásta glacadh leis go bhfuil am an Teachta Sargent á roinnt, mar a dhein Fine Gael roimhe.

Ms O'Sullivan

Tá mé sásta éisteacht le gach éinne sa Teach.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I look forward to the opportunity of listening to all of my colleagues and I intend to remain in the Chamber until I have heard their contributions.

The principle behind the legislation is good and I welcome the fact that it is being debated in the House. The legislation was strengthened during the debate in the Seanad when the Minister of State proved amenable to the suggestions made there with regard to how it might be improved.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

An bhfuil cead agam pointe oird a árdú?

Acting Chairman

Tá. A point of order.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Níl sé soiléir go bhfuil córam sa Teach.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Ms O'Sullivan

The principle of the legislation is good but it begs the question, why can legislation not be written more clearly in the first place? That would help a great deal. All Members sometimes have difficulty understanding the language used in legislation but we do our best, as is our duty, to ensure legislation is as good as it can be and that appropriate amend ments are made by the time it is passed by the Oireachtas.

The Minister, Deputy Hanafin, referred to the report, "Statutory Drafting and Interpretation: Plain Language and the Law", which also makes that point about language. It states:

A major problem with present drafting practice is the use of sentence constructions that are unusual and not readily understandable. There have been several studies and recommendations made on this point over the years, generally to the effect that sentences should be direct and as close to common English usage as possible. The excessive use of conditional clauses and the passive voice, the preference for negative over positive expressions and the separation of subject and verb, are the most pronounced examples of this.

Any Bill can offer examples of this problem. I am particularly aware of this when I give talks to schoolchildren. Members occasionally receive invitations to visit schools to talk to the pupils and I often bring copies of Bills with me. Everybody believes they could be written more plainly. It was pointed out in the Seanad debate on this Bill that pre-1922 legislation was, in many cases, clearer than contemporary legislation.

An Interpretation Bill was published in 2000 which, although it has not yet gone through the Houses, also addresses the issue of clarity in the language used in legislation. The Bill deals with how the courts should interpret legislation and determine what is the intention of the Oireachtas in the legislation. That is not the subject of today's debate but it is an indication that there are difficulties in understanding the wording of our law. I accept that the law must be precise and that it often requires references to subsections and the like and the use of long sentences. However, every effort should be made when drafting legislation to ensure the language is clear.

I welcome the progress made on this legislation in the Seanad and I thank the Minister for accepting a number of changes recommended by my party. These amendments sought to prevent re-numbering or changing the form of the legislation. It was intended that the restatement should be allowed to change the numbers of sections in legislation and to change its form. The belief was that where legislation was being amalgamated and updated, the different references were not required. The counter argument, however, is that to ensure clarity when one is quoting from original legislation, one must have the same reference points in the restatement in order that there is no misunderstanding.

Another issue addressed in the Seanad was gender, which was mentioned by earlier speakers. It was decided that it should not be left to the Attorney General's office to interpret the will of the Oireachtas with regard to gender. In some cases reference to the male gender encompasses reference to the female gender but in others there might be specific references to women as distinct from men or vice versa. The primary issue is the will of the Oireachtas; it is not the role of the Attorney General to change the will of the Oireachtas in any way. The change in that regard has strengthened the legislation.

In the Seanad an amendment was made to ensure the Bill is inclusive with regard to all legislation, including legislation passed before Independence. My colleagues in Sinn Féin will be particularly interested in that. In other words, the Bill has been strengthened to ensure no legislation has been omitted. Another amendment was made to provide that the date of the passing of the Act would always be included in the restatement so there would be no confusion about when the original legislation was passed.

It is important that, resources permitting, all pre-1922 legislation should be codified or repealed. Indeed, that was the subject of a motion from the Labour Party lawyers at the last party conference. There are laws on the Statute Book which predate the existence of the State. I accept it will be a big job and that the Office of the Attorney General is already stretched but there was an indication earlier that the office now has extra staff. It is important that the relevant section in the Office of the Attorney General, the statute law reform and consolidation section, is given the resources to address the updating and clarification of this legislation.

One aspect of recent legislation which concerns me and which is appropriate to today's debate is the practice of substantially amending legislation with further legislation. There was an example of that recently in the context of legislation on immigration, refugees and so forth. I was a member of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights which dealt with Committee Stage of the Immigration Bill. We had to deal with substantial amendments to the Refugee Act through the Immigration Bill. It was quite confusing dealing with amendments to amendments of another Act which was not the legislation under discussion. If it is confusing for legislators, it is probably twice as confusing for the general public and particularly the people directly concerned with the Refugee Act, who would not be familiar with this country and its practices anyway and who might have language difficulties as well. Incidentally, I support Deputy Sargent on the issue he raised. Aontaím gur cheart Billeanna a bheith ar fáil as Gaeilge agus as Béarla. We should endeavour, where possible, to deal with one Bill at a time rather than amending one Bill through another.

It is essential that the Oireachtas is the supreme authority in deciding what the law is. The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law as passed. It is important that this should clearly be the case in this Bill. The restated Act is not the definitive Act, as it were, but the original primary legislation stands and has the force of law. During the Seanad debate the issue of Oireachtas scrutiny of the restatement was discussed, as were amendments in that regard. The Seanad approved the provision in section 8, that any restatement must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for 21 days before it can be published by the Attorney General's office for use. That is the appropriate course to take. It means that each House can make its own decision on how to deal with restatement so that if there is a problem, it can be dealt with by the Houses in the appropriate way.

Some very good points were made in the Seanad debate about the importance of scrutiny by the Oireachtas. That debate, however, concerned how such scrutiny could be achieved. Perhaps we could discuss the modalities on Committee and Report Stages.

I welcome this legislation which will make the business of the Oireachtas more accessible to the general public. It will probably make things easier for us also. In dealing with specific legislation, party spokespersons have a general understanding of it but other Members may not have a detailed knowledge of what is involved. The Bill will help to improve relations between the Oireachtas and the public and I hope it will make the law clearer to people.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I suppose the citizen is always perplexed in obtaining access to the law and, therefore, the perennial problem has been to cast the law in as intelligible a form as possible. In that way, the citizen may obtain legal instruction, and understand his or her rights, without recourse to professional legal advice. If we could do away with the lawyers it would be an ideal world but we cannot, of course, because problems of legal construction and application will always arise.

Historically, in republican theory there has always been a demand to make laws as intelligible and straightforward as possible. Clearly, this Bill is part of that process and as such it is to be welcomed. Napoleon Bonaparte shared that ambition and adopted the famous code civil in France at the beginning of the 19th century, which has always been admired as a masterpiece of legal prose. Some of the articles in the Napoleonic code have never been subject to judicial interpretation but, alas, many others have. Within a few months of the code's publication, Napoleon was invited to the launch of a book written by a commentator on the code. He was quite disgusted and said, “My code is lost because the lawyers and commentators have already clarified what I meant when I adopted it”. It is, therefore, a difficult thing to secure codification.

When one looks back at the mass of material on the Statue Book there is no doubt that, while we have achieved much concerning consolidation and improvements, a lot more could be done. The Bill is part of that process but we should be clear where the process ends. We should be striving for two ideals in this respect. First, the Statute Book should be codified and I cannot see why that should not be possible given the availability of modern computer techniques. In that way, the entire body of statute law could be restated with the force of law by the Oireachtas on a permanent basis. If such work is achieved swiftly by this legislation it will be possible to restate our laws comprehensively, including enactments of the Irish Free State and even Acts of the old Imperial Parliament, which have continued in force under Article 50 of the Constitution. In fact, some Acts of the old Irish Parliament are still in force from before the Act of Union in 1801.

It should be possible to restate all this legislation in the format envisaged by the Bill and if that task is undertaken quickly it will be possible to examine the codification project. I welcome the Bill as a step towards the eventual codification of our laws. Codification is important for the citizen because, as legislators, we strive to help the public to understand the law on any given point. The greater the clarity and simplicity of the law's exposition, as stated here by the legislators, the easier it will be for the citizen to understand it.

The other ideal to which we must pay attention – and, indeed, which the judgments of the superior courts require – is the provision of the law in both official languages. Over the years we have been somewhat remiss in this respect but we must recognise that enormous expenditure implications are involved. The restatement process, however, will help us to progress towards the provision of proper bilingual legislation. For example, we are currently envisaging the immediate consolidation of the sale of goods legislation which has never been translated comprehensively into the first national language, although the opportunity to do so will now arise. It is an important legislative item which sets the template for commercial dealings in the State, including most consumer transactions concerning basic contracts for the sale of goods and for many associated matters. If the restatement now proceeds under the aegis of this legislation, it will present an opportunity to translate legislation in its original form.

Those are the two ideals for which we should strive but a great deal of effort and resources must go into realising them. Many Deputies may wonder why such legislation is necessary and why, for example, we cannot simply restate the legislation as an administrative measure. When one examines the Bill, the only provision that has an effect on the law in the strict sense is section 5(1), which states:

A statement purporting to be certified under section 2 shall be prima facie evidence of the law contained in the provisions to which it relates of any statute or statutory instrument.

At present, one must produce a Stationery Office copy of an Act of the Oireachtas to prove it in a court, which will take judicial notice of it. Under this legislation, a restatement can be produced in court. I have a slight reservation about that, although I suppose I am not allowed to have such reservations nowadays. My reservation is that when a court construes legislation the sequence of the legislation may be important. If a court is interpreting a section, let us say, of the Sale of Goods Act, 1980, the court may have regard to the historical fact that the particular section was enacted in 1980, and that it amended a provision of 1893. Therefore, the history of the legislation becomes relevant when the court is faced with the task of interpreting a particular provision. If a restatement is used as evidence of the law in court, it would then be more difficult for a court to undertake that exercise. The court, however, can always have recourse to the original legislation in order to clarify the position.

I cannot imagine that there will be much controversy about this legislation, although the matters to which I have referred will occasion some debate. I am sure both sides of the House would like to see a greater codification of our law. I take it, also, that everyone in the House would like to ensure the maximum accessibility of all legislation in both official languages.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Tá áthas orm labhairt ar an mBille seo mar úrlabhraí Shinn Féin ar chúrsaí dlí agus ar chúrsaí chultúrtha agus Gaeilge.

Tacaím leis an mBille, chomh fada agus a dhéanann sé iarracht é a dhéanamh níos éasca teacht ar reachtaíocht leasaithe. Déanfaidh an Bille é níos éasca do Bhaill an Oireachtais agus don bpobal reachtaíocht a léamh agus a thuiscint. Beidh an Bille ina áis mhaith dúinne sa Teach agus do dhlíodóirí, do pholaiteoirí agus do shaoránaigh, mar fágfaidh sé go mbeidh reachtaíocht na Dála a chuaigh romhainn níos éasca a léamh.

Tá tacaíocht mo pháirtí le fáil d'aon ghníomh a dhéanann oibriú an daonlathais, an córas reachtaíochta agus an córas dlí níos oscailte nó níos éasca a theacht orthu. D'fhéadfaí i bhfad níos mó a dhéanamh sa Teach ar mhaithe leis sin tríd na focail a úsáidimid agus an slí ina scríobhaimíd iad. Ar ndóigh, d'fhéadfaimid dul i bhfad níos faide ná an Bille seo. Ba cheart go mbeadh an fhoclaíocht a úsáidtear i reachtaíocht níos éasca a thuiscint agus níos soiléire. Spéisiúil go leor, aontaím le píosa amháin de chonradh Nice.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Go raibh maith agat.

Ms Hanafin

An rud iomlán nó píosa de?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Píosa beag amháin. Líne amháin atá i gceist.

Ms Hanafin

Is trua sin.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

An píosa a deir gur chóir go mbeadh foclaíocht na gconarthaí níos simplí.

Mr. B. Lenihan

Aontaíonn gach éinne le sin.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Aontaíonn, agus tá súil agam go dtarlóidh sé, in anneoin an vóta "No" ar an Satharn seo chugainn. Tá súil agam, chomh maith, go ndéanfaimid mar an gcéanna ins an Teach seo.

Conradh an-dheacair chun déileáil leis is ea conradh Nice. Tá léiriú mhaith ins an leabhar a chuir an Teachta Eorpach Jens-Peter Bonde os ár gcomhair, gur féidir reachtaíocht a dhéanamh éasca. His was a reader-friendly edition of the Nice treaty. Ins an leabhar sin, tá an conradh, na sean-chonarthaí agus gach gnéith eile den reachtaíocht curtha ós ár gcomhair i mbonn leanúnach, chomh maith leis na píosaí atá scriosta de réir reachtaíochta nua. Ar imeall na leathanach tá nótaí míniúcháin. Ba chóir dúinn féachaint air sin agus Billí agus reachtaíocht seo againne a dhéanamh ar an mbonn céanna ionas gur féidir le daoine teacht ar mhíniúcháin tapaidh agus simplí. Is céim chun tosaigh an Bille seo, más seo atá i gceist agus má reachtaíotar é tapaidh go leor.

Tá ceist cothromais ann chomh maith agus sin ceann de na príomh bhuairt atá againn, maidir leis an mBille. Tá súil againn go ndéanfar na hathraithe agus na leasaithe – tá roinnt dóibh luaite ag Teachtaí cheana féin – maidir leis an teanga ar Chéim an Choiste agus ar Chéim na Tuarascála.

Ag labhairt ar an gceangail idir an Ghaeilge agus an reachtaíocht seo, labhróidh mé as Béarla ionas nach ndéanfar neamháird ar a bhfuil á rá agam, mar a tharlaíonn go minic nuair a labhartar as Gaeilge sa Teach.

Members will be well acquainted with Article 8.1º of the Constitution, which states:

The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.

Members will also be aware of the provisions of Article 25.4.4º, which states:

Where the President signs the text of a Bill in one only of the official languages, an official translation shall be issued in the other official language.

Tá buairt orainn maidir le seo, nach bhfuil aon daingniú déanta ins an Bille chun a cinntiú go mbeidh fáil níos tapúla ag Gaeilgeoirí ar an téacs dleathúil ina dteanga féin. We are concerned that this Bill, as it stands, does nothing to safeguard or increase the access of Irish speaking people to legislative texts in their own language – the first official language. This reflects the ongoing neglect – some would say contempt – by legislators for the equal rights of the Irish language. Léiriú é seo ar neamháird leanúnach. Tá súil agam go mbeidh athrú air sin amach anseo toisc an Bille seo agus toisc leasaithe a bheidh ag teacht chun chinn.

Bhí Sinn Féin chun tosaigh thar na blianta, mar aon lena lán daoine ins an Teach seo, ag déanamh iarracht cothramas a fháil do Ghaeilgeoirí ina dtír féin. Le blianta fada anuas, táimid ag iarraidh go mbeadh na Billí ar fad foilsithe ins an dá theanga agus go mbeadh an reachtaíocht ar fad aistrithe go Gaeilge muna bhfuil sé déanta roimhe seo.

We strongly believe that the laws of this State must be made available in both languages simultaneously, má tá sé chun a bheith clóbhuailte nó má tá sé i bhfoirm leictreonach. Ba cheart go mbeadh an leagan Gaeilge agus an leagan Béarla ar fáil do gach duine ins an Teach seo chomh luath agus atá Bille tairgthe agus go mbeadh sé ar fáil do gach uile dhuine ins an Stát chomh luath agus atá sé rite.

Níl sé luaite go mbeidh an Bille seo umhail don "constitutional requirement" go mbeadh Billí rite sa dá theanga nó go mbeidh aistriúcháin ar a laghad ann ins an dá theanga. Is botún beag é. Níl sé chomh dáirire sin ach bheadh sé deas dá mbeadh sé ceartaithe amach anseo.

There is currently a 20 year gap in the production of translations of Acts of the Oireachtas and of Statutory Instruments in Irish. The practice of simultaneous translation was eliminated after 1980. It was another victim of cost-cutting at the time. Indeed, since 1979, only a small number of statutes have been translated. Those few have been done haphazardly and often only in response to litigation or threats of litigation. This current state of affairs maidir leis an nGaeilge is an absolute disgrace. It constitutes nothing less than a gross dereliction of duty in relation to the constitutional requirement under Article 25.4.4º.

The failure of the State to provide official Irish translations of law and important legal materials was roundly condemned last year by the Supreme Court in Ó Beoláin v. Fahy. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Hardiman found that the situation pertaining at present, where literally decades can elapse between the enacting of legislation in English and its translation into Irish, is “an offence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution”, and evidence of a “policy of inertia” with respect to the constitutional rights of Irish speakers. In her judgment, Ms Justice McGuinness concurred and further concluded that the State was simply unwilling to provide the resources to fulfil its clear constitutional duty, and that it was desirable for the court to publicly stress the mandatory nature of that duty.

Clearly there needs to be a concerted effort on the part of the State to rectify the problem highlighted by that Supreme Court judgment. Clearly there needs to be consistency in legislation on this point. Indeed, as the case of Ó Beoláin v. Fahy showed, it is utterly irresponsible on the part of the State to continue to leave Acts and legal instruments untranslated, as this situation can leave prosecutions open to constitutional challenges. This situation must end rapidly and this Bill affords us the opportunity to take a step in this direction.

We were disappointed to say the least that no commitment to remedying this appeared in the programme for Government. However, it would be entirely appropriate for this legislation to play a positive role, together with the forthcoming Official Languages Equality Bill, in rectifying this sorry state of affairs. Tá súil agam go ndéanfar sin agus go ndéanfar leasú caoi ar Chéim an Choiste nó ar Chéim na Tuarascála. Tá súil agam go mbeidh mo pháirtí in ann iomlán tacaíochta a thabhairt don mBille seo mar is Bille tábhachtach é a dhéanfaidh an daonlathas agus an córas dlí níos éasca agus níos oscailte don bpobal. Déanfaidh sé obair Bhaill an Oireachtais níos éasca chomh maith nuair atáimid ag déileáil le reachtaíocht sa Teach agus ag moladh leasaithe air.

Sinn Féin would prefer to see an amendment to provide that any and all such restatements, whether in printed or electronic form be made available simultaneously in both official languages, in keeping with constitutional guarantees and respecting the equal rights of Irish speakers. Ní leor go mbeadh aistriúcháin ar fáil roinnt mí nó roinnt bliana ina dhiaidh ach go mbeidh an dá leagan le fáil ag an am gcéanna.

Mr. Connolly

I welcome this Bill, which is designed to modernise the Statute Book or consolidate statutes in order to facilitate readability, as the Law Reform Commission's consultation paper, Statutary Drafting and Interpretation – Plain Language and the Law, recommended. The commission also saw the necessity to update older legislation and to redraft it in modern language and format. Between 50 and 60 Acts are enacted every year, many amending previous Acts.

We should simplify the process of identifying laws on a particular point. Acts of the Oireachtas will be updated in a more readable and comprehensible form, known as restatements, without the substance of the law being altered, thereby precluding the necessity for approval by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Nevertheless, there should be some form of parliamentary scrutiny of restatements in the interest of accountability, since restatements run closely parallel to the legislation they reflect and which itself emanated from the Oireachtas. Parliament should be consulted in the process before the restatement is finalised and takes effect. This process could be referred to one of the parliamentary committees.

The parliamentary draftsmen deserve our highest praise for the work they have carried out. The degree of accuracy and discipline they bring to their work is an example to all.

The language of legislation is not always understandable to Members. This morning Deputy Ring stated that 95% of Members of the House do not understand the language of legislation and I can assure Members that I do not belong to the other 5%. Many of the 5% who understand the language of legislation are solicitors and I am sure their interpretations of it vary, as this is how the members of that profession make their money. One would sometimes think laws are designed to confuse people. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsman could arrange a seminar to help Members in this regard.

Considerable research is necessary to check statutes quoted in legislation and this can prove a protracted process. The Bill will be instrumental in simplifying legislation and bringing it into the new millennium. It will also make it possible to cite a restatement in court, once it has been clarified by the Attorney General as prima facie evidence of the legislation to which it refers, without the necessity for formal proof.

The updating of legislation on CD-ROM and its presentation on the Oireachtas Internet website will be of immense assistance in making it accessible to a greater audience than before. Most people now have access to computers and the Internet and will now be able to research Acts of the Oireachtas in Ireland and worldwide. There is no greater resource than the Internet for cross-referencing several Acts when one is conducting research into legislation. The site webmaster is to be commended on the consistently high standard of the site and its constant updating. It is a useful resource for Members.

Restatements will assist in making legislation more user and reader friendly and anything that makes legislation more understandable and accessible to the public is to be welcomed. The Bill is overdue and eminently desirable. The language of legislation should be clear, concise and easily readable. Restatements will be of immense assistance in achieving this. I commend this Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin)

I welcome the reaction of Members to the Bill. While I believe everyone in the House welcomes it, a number of questions were raised.

Aontaíonn gach éinne a labhair gur chóir go mbeadh reachtaíocht ar fáil i nGaeilge chomh luath agus is féidir, agus ní deich mbliana tar éis an chéad foilsiúcháin. Admháim go bhfuil bearna ann idir Bhille a rith tríd na Tithe agus é a fhoilsiú sa dá theanga. Admháim go bhfuil sin deacair do dhaoine atá ag dul os comhair na cúirteanna. Ainneoin nach bhfuil morán daoine i gceist, ba cheart go mbeadh a gcearta á fháil ag na daoine sin. Tá sé thar a bheith deacair daoine a fháil chun an obair seo a dhéanamh. Tá sé deacair daoine a fháil chun reachtaíocht a ullmhú i nGaeilge in Oifig an Ard Aighne agus uaireanta is gá saineolaithe a thabhairt isteach san oifig ón dtaobh amuigh. Sula ndéantar athráiteas i nGaeilge caithfear an bearna sin a líonadh agus reachtaíocht Béarla a aistriú go Gaeilge chomh luath agus is féidir. Glacaim leis an méid a dúradh agus aontaím go mór leis. Déanfaidh mé féin mo chuid chun féachaint go rachfar ar aghaidh leis sin.

We all welcome the fact that the Bill will make legislation more accessible. It is an extraordinary admission of Deputy Ring's, albeit honest, that 95% of those of us who make legislation do not understand the language in it. I am not sure if this is a reflection on us as legislators or on those who draft the legislation. I would not wish to give the impression to the public that we do not understand the legislation we are passing. We study and investigate the minutiae of every word of legislation on Committee Stage and we understand the principles, thoughts and ideas behind our legislation. Matters become technical when the courts interpret legislation or when officers of the court place various interpretations on it. Every piece of legislation which goes through these Houses is studied carefully, despite the fact that its language may be more technical than we are accustomed to.

The Bill will make it easier to read Acts, particularly those which have been consolidated and which may be available in several parts, but this does not involve a dumbing down of legal language. Law is law and legal language is legal language. It is not always possible to simplify it for the sake of simplicity. Of course, making legislation more accessible is the aim of this Bill.

A number of questions were raised about the process of restatement. Deputy Durkan asked about certification. The Attorney General will certify each Act and we must then see how the restatements will be used. Some people may be suspicious of a restatement but if there is a question of interpretation the original Act will prevail, as Deputy Durkan suggested.

Deputy Sargent asked which legislation will be dealt with first. Immediately on the passing of this Act the Attorney General will consult with each Department to decide those priorities. They are likely to be those Acts which are regularly in use and those which are spread out over a number of decades with a number of different amendments to them.

Deputy Ring raised questions about the language, about Ministers answering questions and about parliamentary questions. There are many things proposed in the Bill, but it will not answer parliamentary questions and it will not change the way Ministers answer them. However, this is an issue the Whips have been discussing and, more importantly, it will be taken up with the issue of Dáil reform.

Deputy Sargent asked the reasons for this Bill. It is not isolated legislation. Restatement is part of the wider agenda of public service modernisation. It is recognised by the OECD as an important element of improving the regulatory environment and will encourage people in other areas also. Costs will primarily be absorbed by the greater administrative efficiencies that will be put in place. It will be a strong investment and restatement will ensure that interpretation can be made by the person who is reading legislation rather than that person having to pay big legal fees, as has been mentioned.

A valid question was raised on EU legislation, which Members recognise is written in a language that no individual member country can fully understand. I recall my time working in the European Parliament when everything seemed to include a "whereas", "wherefore" or "thereto" before one got to the nub of the motion. The EU could also take lessons from us on how to proceed. However, I know that at EU level efforts are being made to make legislation more accessible.

More importantly, there was a welcome admission from Deputy Ó Snodaigh that there is a part of the Nice treaty that he welcomes. That is something the Government will highlight over the next couple of days and we will not confine ourselves to highlighting it only in the Irish language, as he did.

Mr. Durkan

He will be highlighting it.

Ms Hanafin

We will broadcast it to the nation.

Mr. Sargent

The Minister should not get carried away.

Ms Hanafin

It would cause mayhem. It was an interesting admission by Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I welcome it. Deputy Sargent asked about restatements and their availability to citizens. Anything that can help groups to understand legislation, as with community groups and residents' associations which wish to understand planning legislation, is helpful. That it will be available on the Internet will help the ordinary citizen to have a better understanding of what we do in this House.

It is important to note that restatement does not reinterpret or change any of the principles behind the initial Bill. Therefore, there is no need to come back before the Houses again, as Deputy Connolly suggested, because the initial legislation will have been fully understood when it was passed. This Bill is a form of cut and paste job on a variety of legislation. As a courtesy to the Houses, it has to be laid before the Houses by the Attorney General 21 days before it can be used.

Deputy O'Sullivan acknowledged the amendments which I accepted in the Seanad earlier this year, where we had a very good debate on this. I acknowledge that there are many different issues in relation to legislation which must be addressed. The language of statutes and the attempt to make information, especially pre-1922 legislation, available electronically are difficult issues that will arise down the road but are not necessarily part of this legislation. Deputy Brian Lenihan talked about codifying all Irish law. That should be the ideal outcome of this restatement process.

This legislation has passed through the Seanad and I hope it has a speedy passage through Committee Stage because, as Members will admit, this is something that is not only of interest to legal people and the courts system but it can also be of benefit to Members of the Houses and the ordinary citizen. I take on board Deputy Connolly's valuable suggestion that there might be a seminar at the parliamentary counsel's office, particularly for new Members and those of us who are here slightly longer and might pretend to know it all but do not. That would be invaluable and I will put it in motion.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt ins an díospóireacht agus tá súil againn gur féidir linn teacht ar ais chomh luath agus is féidir chun an Bille a rith.

Question put and agreed to.