The purpose of this meeting is to consider Committee Stage of the Statute Law Revision Bill 2007, which was referred to the select committee by Dáil Éireann on 28 February 2007. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kitt, and his officials.
Is the circulated grouping schedule agreed to? Agreed. There is a drafting error in amendment No. 38. It refers to "1763 (Geo. 3) c. 31" but should read "1763 (3 Geo. 3) c. 31".
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 13, to delete "table to this Schedule" and substitute "Table to this section".
This is a drafting amendment to correct an incorrect reference in this section.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
10.—The repeal or retention of a statute under this Act shall not, in any way, be relied upon as a basis for establishing that that statute or those statutes ever actually applied in Ireland.".
Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on this amendment.
I agree with the Deputy that the inclusion of a statute in Schedule 2 should not be taken as sufficient to establish that the statute applied to Ireland. However, the amendment is unnecessary because its principal thrust is already contained in the Bill. I refer the Deputy to section 3(3), which provides that "The inclusion of a statute in Schedule 2 shall not be taken as evidence that the statute, or any provision of it, was of full force and effect immediately before the passing of this Act”. That provision is wide enough to cover statutes that are not of full force or effect by reason of the fact that they may not have applied to Ireland. Corresponding provision for the retained statutes in Schedule 1 is not necessary.
An Act has only been included in Schedule 1 where there is a belief, based on the extensive research conducted by the Office of the Attorney General, that it has or may have ongoing relevance to Ireland. However, if any Act listed in Schedule 1 were to be cited in a legal case, the extent of its constitutionality and application to Ireland would be a matter for the courts to decide. It is the Government's intention that all legislation that predates the foundation of the State will be repealed. Where an Act from before 1922 needs to be kept, it will be repealed and re-enacted in more modern form. I therefore do not propose to accept the Deputy's amendment on the grounds that, in respect of the Acts listed in Schedule 1, it is unnecessary. The Acts listed in Schedule 2 are already covered substantially in section 3(3) of the Bill. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
10.—The Attorney shall, within 5 years of the passing of this Act, ensure that the texts of statutes referred to in Schedule 1 shall be made publicly available through the on-line statute book.
I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment that the statutes should be publicly available. That is a major part of the rationale for the Government statute law revision programme. The Government has decided in principle to move towards a codification of the Statute Book which would involve a repeal of all of the statutes in Schedule 1 and their replacement by the provisions of a modern code. It is anticipated that modern legislation will be available on-line in the same way as other legislation passed since 1922. The amendment is therefore unnecessary because the process to which it refers is already built into the coming phases of the Government statute law revision programme.
There are a number of other technical difficulties with the amendment. As drafted, it would freeze the list of statutes to be made available through the on-line Statute Book on the basis of those listed in Schedule 1 on the day the Bill is enacted. It must be borne in mind that Schedule 1 is only a snapshot of the pre-1922 Acts we propose to retain in force at the moment. For example, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill, when enacted and commenced, will propose to repeal about 10% of the Acts in Schedule 1. By the end of the five-year period proposed in the amendment, many of the Acts in Schedule 1 will have been repealed or will have become obsolete. I do not propose, therefore, to accept the amendment on the grounds that it is unnecessary and the issue it raises is covered by the Government's ongoing programme of statute law revision.
Without being an expert in this field, there is a world of difference between a statutory obligation to complete work within a five-year period and a declaration of intent by a Government that it hopes to do so. While the Minister of State may be right about some frailties in the wording of the amendment, the intention is to place an obligation on the Government to deliver within a set timeframe. Subject to amendments the Minister of State wants to make to avoid being too confined, a five-year period is a reasonable timeframe for the codification and placing on-line of this material. This is an area where other things could take priority and if it is to happen, so we should put a statutory obligation in place.
I refer to the technical aspect of the amendment in that it would freeze the list of statutes to be made available in the on-line Statute Book. As I said in my opening remarks, we have an ongoing programme of work to move towards codification of the Statute Book. This Bill is about getting rid of dead legislation and the modernising of the process is unstoppable. The freezing of the laws to be placed on the Statute Book is a matter of concern but I assure the Deputy that the Government thinks the same way as him in this regard.
Is the Government willing to make a commitment on time or is the five years too tight? Is there any other way to assure the Oireachtas that the Government will deliver on its commitment on this programme?
If something remains after the five-year period, we will give a commitment to put it on-line. That should meet the Deputy's concerns.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 11, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
10. (1) The statutes referred to in Schedule 1 shall, within 5 years of the passing of this Act, be repealed and re-enacted in such form and with such amendments as are necessary for the modernisation and updating of the law in respect of each.
(2) Any statute repealed and re-enacted under this section shall be made publicly available through the on-line statute book.
I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment that we move to replace the pre-1922 legislation with modern legislation. As I have previously told the House, the Government has decided in principle to move towards codification of the Statute Book, which would involve a repeal of all of the statutes in Schedule 1 and their replacement with a modern code. That modern legislation would, it can be anticipated, be publicly available on-line in the same way as other legislation passed since 1922. The amendment is therefore unnecessary because the process to which it refers is already built into the coming phases of the Government statute law revision programme.
There are other technical difficulties with the amendment. It is not possible in a provision of a statute, as proposed by the amendment, to compel the Oireachtas to take any future action such as the repeal and re-enactment of other statutes. While the Government has already decided to pursue a course of action that encompasses the thrust of what is proposed in the amendment, the implementation of that decision will depend on future decisions by the Oireachtas. We cannot meaningfully anticipate those decisions by a statutory provision of the kind proposed by Deputy Kehoe.
As drafted, the amendment would also freeze the list of statutes to be re-enacted and made available on-line on the basis of those listed in Schedule 1 on the day the Bill is enacted. However, as previously indicated, Schedule 1 is only a snapshot of the pre-1922 Acts which we propose to retain in force. Other legislation being progressed will on enactment and commencement repeal over 10% of the Acts listed in Schedule 1. By the end of the five-year period proposed in the amendment, a great deal of the Acts in Schedule 1 will have been repealed or become obsolete. It may also be that a future Oireachtas will decide that some the Acts in Schedule 1 can be repealed without replacement.
I do not propose to accept the amendment on the grounds that it is unnecessary and that the issue it raises is covered by the Government's ongoing programme of statute law revision.
Amendments Nos. 5, 7, 11 to 13, inclusive, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26 and 29 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 15, line 38, to delete "For reducing" and substitute "Reduction of".
These amendments all effect minor changes to correct the grammar and spelling of column 2 subject matter of the tables set out in the Schedule.
Amendment No. 5 standardises the format of the subject matter in column 2 of the entry regarding the Pawnbrokers Act 1703. Amendments Nos. 7, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 26 standardise the format of the subject matter column regarding the Licensed Grocers (Ireland) Act 1818, the Public Works (Ireland)(No. 2) Act 1846, the Medical Act 1858, the Medical Act 1860, the Medical Act 1876 and the British Ships (Transfer Restriction) Act 1915.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 align the Short Titles in the subject matter in respect of the Textile Manufactures (Ireland) Act 1840 and the Textile Manufactures (Ireland) Act 1842.
Amendment No. 20 corrects an omission in the subject matter column of the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878. Amendment No. 29 standardises the reference to a statute in the subject matter column of an Irish Act of 1472-73 so that it is referred to in the same way as other statutes.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 14 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 24, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"
|
1719 (6 Geo. 1) c. 11 |
Plate duty |
Plate Duty Act 1719 |
".
These amendments concern the addition of Acts to Schedule 1. These Acts were previously recorded as being repealed or not applicable to Ireland because one or more of the leading texts such as the Northern Ireland chronological tables, the HMSO chronological tables or Cullinan's Irish Statutes indicated this was the case.
On close examination, however, of the text of the statutes which purportedly repeals these Acts, it became apparent in each case that the Acts did apply to Ireland and had not been fully repealed. Some part of each statute remained in effect. In each case, the residue has or may have some continuing effect and should therefore be retained pending further substantive law reform in the relevant areas of the law.
Amendment No. 6 inserts a statute in Schedule 1 regarding the Plate Duty Act 1719, which had previously being treated as being repealed. This arose because the Act 1719 (6 Geo. 1) c. 11 is recorded on the Northern Ireland chronological tables as being entirely repealed by an Act of 1870. Although a large part of it has been repealed, some of the Act remains in force and may be relevant to the law on hallmarking.
Amendment No. 14 inserts an Act into Schedule 1, the Public Health (Duty) Act 1848, which had been previously recorded as not being applicable to Ireland. The Act, which in its own terms excluded application to Ireland, was not listed in the Northern Ireland chronological tables. However, a subsequent Act of 1866, made one section of the Act applicable to Ireland. The Act was repealed as it applied to England in 1875, but that repealing provision was never extended to Ireland. The Act will be preserved in Schedule 1 until further examination can take place in the context of the laws relating to public health.
For what did the Plate Duty Act 1719 provide? Perhaps the Minister of State might explain, since we are not acquainted with it on this side of the table, and 1719 was a long time ago.
The Act relates to duty on plate. It was partially repealed by an Act of 1870, to the extent that only sections 1(3) and 41 remain in force. Section 1(3) concerns the introduction of a standard weight and prohibits goldsmiths and silversmiths from being forced to work on or sell plate below that standard. Section 41 concerns distinguishing marks for two different standards of wrought plate, and the Act is not currently suitable for repeal, as it may still hold relevance to the law on hallmarking.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 27, column (2), lines 39 and 40, to delete "Spirits (Ireland) retail by grocers" and substitute the following:
"Spirits retail by grocers (Ireland)".
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 28, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"
|
1819 (59 Geo. 3) c. 109 |
Irish Fisheries |
Irish Fisheries Act 1819 |
".
Amendment No. 8 inserts an Act into Schedule 1, the Irish Fisheries Act 1819, which had previously been recorded as having been repealed by an Act of 1842. The Act is described in it as having been repealed, but it appears that a saving clause in the 1842 Act continued some provisions, for example, those relating to piers. Therefore, the remaining provisions of the Act will be preserved in force pending further examination of legislation on fisheries and piers.
Amendment No. 9 is in the name of Deputy Kehoe, and amendments Nos. 18 and 21 to 25, inclusive, are related. We will therefore discuss amendments Nos. 9, 18 and 21 to 25, inclusive, together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 28, column (4), line 13, to insert "Mental Health (Ireland) Act 1821".
I agree with the sentiment behind many of these amendments, namely, that we must work towards the use of modern, sensitive language, especially when dealing with issues relating to mental health. I intend to deal with the issue of appropriate language that the Deputy raises when the legislation in question is processed as part of the repeal and re-enactment programme.
Amendment No. 22, which refers to "Her Majesty's Ships", is in a slightly different category. The Act in question has an existing Short Title that is a product of its time. While we can improve on historical Acts as part of the repeal and re-enactment programme, there is no point in our seeking to rewrite history by renaming historical Acts that have a long-established Short Title. The issue identified by the Deputy will be addressed when the Act in question is dealt with under the repeal and re-enactment programme.
Furthermore, there are several technical reasons that the amendment cannot be made at this stage. The Acts in question, like any others, are known as, and referred to in other legislation and legal documents, by reference to their existing Short Titles, and any major changes to those existing Short Titles other than to add a year or correct an error might cause confusion and legal difficulty.
Moreover, Schedule 1 is drafted in such a way as to provide that every Act have an entry in column 3 or column 4, but not both. In other words, as far as possible we are providing just one Short Title for each Act. However, the Deputy's amendment would leave the existing Short Title in place in column 3 in each case, creating an anomaly regarding the rest of the Schedule. It would also mean the amendments' objective would not be achieved, in that the old Title would remain fully in force.
I therefore propose not to accept the amendments, on the grounds that they are not workable as drafted. However, the issue raised is covered in the Government's ongoing programme of statute law revision. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendments. I fully empathise and agree with him on the outdated language, and I hope that my explanation has sufficed to satisfy his concerns.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 31, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"
|
1834 (4 & 5 Will. 4) c. 60 |
Land tax |
Land Tax Act 1834 |
".
Amendment No. 10 inserts an Act into Schedule 1, the Land Tax Act 1834, which had previously been recorded as having been repealed. Further research has discovered that the Act was not repealed, and it will now be retained, pending further examination of land law and Revenue matters.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 33, column (2), line 47, to delete "manufacturers" and substitute "manufactures".
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 34, column (2), line 21, to delete "manufacturers" and substitute "manufactures".
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 36, column (2), line 52, to delete "(No. 2)"
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 38, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"
|
1848 (11 & 12 Vict.) c. 63 |
Public health |
Public Health Act 1848 |
"
Amendment No. 15 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 47 is related, so we shall discuss amendments Nos. 15 and 47 together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 42, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"
|
1855 (118 & 19 Vict.) c. 60 |
Wedding rings |
Wedding Rings Act 1855 |
".
Amendment No. 15 inserts the Wedding Rings Act 1855 into Schedule 1, which had previously been placed in Schedule 2. This Act amends the Gold and Silverwares Act 1854. During the public consultation, prior to publication of the Bill, both of these Acts were listed as being suitable for repeal. Representations were received as regards the 1854 Act and it was then moved to Schedule 1. As the Weddings Rings Act amends the 1854 Act, which is being preserved, this Act should also be preserved, as they are connected.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 44, column (2), line 20, after "Medical" to insert "regulation".
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 45, column (2), line 42, after "Medical" to insert "regulation".
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 59, column (2), line 58, after "Medical" to insert "regulation".
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 62, column (2), line 7, after "Public" to insert "health".
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 82, column (2), line 15, to delete "Ships" and substitute "British ships".
Will the Minister of State please explain what is meant by deleting "Ships" and substituting "British ships"? Many more ships are registered in Panama and places outside the European Union's jurisdiction. Will he please elaborate on what is meant by that?
We are deleting "Ships" and putting in "British ships" because it applies to British ships.
What applies?
While we are getting that information, I should just remind the Deputy that this has taken months of very valuable research.
It is quite interesting. The Minister of State was before this committee before with something similar and that was quite interesting as well.
The work we did on the last occasion was minimal by comparison with this, which is quite substantial. Some 26,000 Acts were examined overall.
We have the information the Deputy was seeking. The Act restricts the transfer of British ships to people not qualified to own British ships. This Act is suitable for attention as it may still have effect, according to my computer here.
I accept the answer.
I do not think the Deputy is in a position to contradict that.
I am being ridiculous now. The champion hurdle is obviously more important.
If there are any details on any particular section, we will be more than delighted to get that information for the Deputy. As I said in the Dáil, it would be very suitable work for students in first and second level schools.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 95, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"
|
1342 (16 Edw. 3) [P.R.O. vol. 1, Appendix] |
Observance in Ireland of 15 Edw. 3 St. 2 |
".
Amendment No. 27 inserts a further Act into Schedule 2, which is the list of Acts for appeal. This is a royal ordinance, as opposed to an Act of Parliament, as it would be understood today. It gave effect in Ireland to an earlier English statute. The original English statute, 15 Edward 3 Statute 2, has been repealed, but during further research it became clear that the ordinance applying that statute to Ireland has an independent statutory existence. It is now being repealed in the interests of clarity.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 101, to delete lines 6 to 10.
Amendment No. 28 deletes two Acts of 1431 from Schedule 2, which had previously been recorded as being in force. These Acts had not been previously recorded as being enforced. They had not been previously recorded in the standard publications such as Cullinan's Irish Statutes 1310 to 1800 or the Northern Ireland Chronological Tables. This led to an understanding that they had become obscure and had never been repealed. However, during a recent checking of a statute of 1613, it was discovered that these two Acts had been repealed by that 1613 statute and it is therefore not appropriate or necessary to repeal them again.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 139, column (2), line 8, to delete "10th and 11th year of Edward 4" and substitute "10 & 11 Edw. 4".
Amendments Nos. 30 to 35, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 170, to delete lines 39 to 41.
These amendments concern deletions from Schedule 2. The reason for these deletions is that the Acts in question had not been recorded as being repealed in a standard publication such as Cullinan's Irish Statutes 1310 to 1800, or the Northern Ireland Chronological Tables. This led to an understanding that they were still in force. However, on rechecking the text of a number of later statutes from the 18th century, it was discovered that these Acts have already been repealed. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeal them again.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 171, to delete lines 9 and 10.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 171, to delete lines 13 and 14.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 171, to delete lines 15 to 17.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 171, to delete lines 21 to 23.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 171, to delete lines 27 and 28.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 171, to delete lines 34 and 35.
This amendment deletes an Act of 1735 from Schedule 2 which had previously been recorded as enforced because of an ambiguity in the repealing provisions. The Act appears to have been fully repealed by an Act of 1759, but was partially repealed by subsequent statutes which cast doubt on the original repeal. However, the original repeal appears to have been effective and the Act must, therefore, be regarded as being fully repealed.
Amendments Nos. 37 to 46, inclusive, and 48 to 50, inclusive, are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 172, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"
|
1751 (25 Geo. 2) c. 11 |
Wills |
".
These amendments concern additions to Schedule 2, the list of statutes for appeal. The reason for the addition is that the Acts in question have been previously recorded as having been fully repealed in the standard publications, such as Cullinan's Irish Statutes 1310 to 1800 and the Northern Ireland Chronological Tables. However, on a close examination of the text of the statutes that reportedly repealed these Acts, it became apparent in each case that the Act had been only partially repealed and that some part, however minor or technical, remained in effect. In each case, however, the residue is obsolete, and each Act can now be repealed.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 173, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"
|
1763 (Geo. 3) c. 31 |
Road from Dundalk to Banbridge |
".
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 174, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"
|
1773-74 (13 & 14 Geo. 3) c. 39 |
Road from Dublin to Kinnegad |
".
What was the historical reason for these legislative provisions regarding the roads from Dundalk to Banbridge and Dublin to Kinnegad?
They were toll roads.
I am disappointed that Deputy Paul McGrath has left, because they are relevant to his constituency. Perhaps there were tolls at that time also.
Amendment No. 39 inserts an Act of 1773-1774 into Schedule 2. This Act is recorded in Cullinan's Irish Statutes 1310 to 1800 as having been fully repealed by an Act of 1795. On close inspection of that 1795 legislation, however, it became clear that one section of the 1773-1774 Act may have been preserved. This preservation related only to Acts repealed by the 1773-1774 Act . The residue of this Act can now be repealed.
What does that mean?
These are technical amendments.
"Residue" usually refers to what is left over, but there is nothing left over here.
There was much debate in the Seanad on the references to roads in various locations. The conclusion is that this legislation can be repealed as unnecessary.
The Deputy need not worry, the roads will not be closed.
I am just interested. Roads have become controversial recently because of tolls and so on.
I cannot wait until we get to amendment No. 45.
We should concern ourselves with modern tolls rather than these ones.
I will invite Deputy Catherine Murphy to my constituency.
Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is welcome to come to mine.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 175, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"
|
1781-82 (21 & 22 Geo. 3) c. 39 |
Road from Dublin to Mullingar |
".
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 176, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"
|
1786 (26 Geo. 3) c. 38 |
Inland navigation |
".
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 192, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
"
|
1495 (11 Hen. 7) c. 20 |
Doweress, etc. |
".
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 194, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"
|
1727 (1 Geo. 2 St 1) c. 5 |
Demise of the Crown |
".
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 201, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"
|
1830 (11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4) c. 54 |
Fisheries (Scotland) |
".
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 203, between lines 53 and 54, to insert the following:
"
|
1846 (9 & 10 Vict.) c. 29 |
Sugar duties |
".
I am sure several Deputies are interested in sugar duties.
The Chairman's constituency was known as Little Birmingham many years ago. Mountmellick had a sugar factory before Carlow did. Is that in Offaly or Laois?
It is in Laois. It will remain the Queen's County until this Bill is enacted.
This Act relates to sugar duties and is listed for repeal in other legislation. However, the relevant section states that the "duties on sugar and molasses imposed by the said recited Acts shall be and they are hereby repealed". The Act itself was not expressly repealed and therefore remained in force. It is now suitable for repeal as it is spent.
Were these taxation duties?
I understood the duties were rescinded but the Act itself remained.
Were these Revenue duties?
These duties were removed in 1846.
Were they a form of tax for the Exchequer?
Yes, they would have been.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 204, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"
|
1846 (9 & 10 Vict.) c. 41 |
Sugar duties |
".
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 206, to delete lines 9 and 10.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 206, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"
|
1855 (18 & 19 Vict.) c. 78 |
Inland revenue |
Inland Revenue Act 1855 |
".
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 209, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"
|
1865 (28 & 29 Vict.) c. 30 |
Revenue |
Revenue Act 1865 |
".
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 215, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
"
|
1887 (50 & 51 Vict.) c. 32 |
Open spaces |
Open Spaces Act 1887 |
".
What is the explanation for this amendment?
Does it refer to green areas?
The Open Spaces Act 1887 extended certain provisions of the Metropolitan Open Spaces Acts 1877 and 1881 with amendments to sanitary districts throughout England, Wales and Ireland and was partially repealed by 1906. As the remaining sections relate to an amendment to the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 that did not apply to Ireland, this Act is suitable for repeal.
I thought it might refer to green areas beside housing estates.
I thank members, the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance.
