Could I ask the Minister what he is repealing in this section? What is the substantive necessity for repealing the 1968 Act?
Defence Forces (Pensions) Bill, 1975: (Certified Money Bill) : Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Bill, 1968, covered certain schemes. This Bill now covers those schemes.
Is this not covered in section 2 of the 1968 Act?
No.
Section 2 of the present Act refers to section 2, 4 or 5 of the Principal Act of 1932. Does that not also deal with the 1968 amending Act?
Section 2 covers all schemes under the Principal Act and, once section 2 comes into operation, section 3 becomes superfluous.
That is what I mean, we do not need section 3.
The situation is this. The Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Act, 1968, is hereby repealed, that is section 3. As a matter of law it is necessary to repeal it. Section 2 of this Bill covers what is required.
I am asking two questions: what is the scheme in the 1968 Act which must be repealed and is not already covered in section 2 of this Act, which refers to the Principal Act of 1932?
Nothing, but as a legislative matter it is necessary to repeal the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Act, 1968. This is done in section 3.
I thought that was covered by section 2 of the current Act.
It is, but it is not for me to go against parliamentary draftsmen. I am perfectly happy with repealing the Defence Forces (Pensions) (Amendment) Act, 1968, in section 3 of this Bill.
I bow to the Minister's judgment but it exemplifies what Senator Sanfey and I have been complaining about, that is, the incredible complexity of these Acts which go back over many years. When I look at these Acts I try to see how an alteration in one could be brought into effect. Unless one goes right back to 1932 you do not know what other amendments must be made. This is a good argument for the consolidation of legislation as a whole. It is very complex for the layman to sort out what is going on.
I agree that that is so and I hope we will get round to consolidating legislation in the future. The only reason we have not done this already is that the senior staff are just not available. From the time the duties of the Department of Defence became more onerous, about six years ago, the senior staff were not available. I would hope that we will do it. There are other matters which could be more serious. After all, this is only an irritation. Even though one is confronted with a maze of legislation if one has to go through it, it does not help the individual pensioner to consolidate it. We will do our best to do what the Senator wishes but at the moment we are tied up with work.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.