Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 3 November 2004
13 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date by the Office of the Attorney General with Government Departments and offices in regard to proposals for the repeal of obsolete pre-1922 legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21334/04]
View answer14 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the progress which has been made by the Office of the Attorney General in regard to proposals for the repeal of obsolete pre-1922 legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23514/04]
View answer15 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date on the repeal of obsolete pre-1922 legislation. [24122/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, together.
In 2003, the statute law revision unit of the Office of the Attorney General undertook an audit of all legislation enacted between 1235 and 1922 that is still in force in the State. It was decided to concentrate on the public general Acts to ascertain the Acts which continue to be of practical utility and are in use and to identify Acts which are no longer required. The unit concentrated on the possible repeal of legislation that might affect competitiveness, was contrary to the Constitution or international obligations or was written in such archaic language that it no longer added value. The unit successfully identified a significant number of obsolete Acts. A consultation process was launched in April 2004, involving the unit and all Departments, with the intention of confirming the identified Acts which could be safely repealed. The public was informed by means of advertisements and invited to respond. The consultation process between the Departments and the unit is continuing. It is intended to complete the process and to publish a statute law revision Bill, which will repeal the obsolete Acts, during the current Dáil session.
I do not suppose there is much point in teasing out this matter further, given that we have been down this road before. I accept that some of the statutes being repealed are historical curiosities. Can the Taoiseach remind the House of the purpose of this exercise? Is it being done to facilitate ease of reference by practitioners of the law? Will it have other practical use?
I propose to take questions from Deputies Sargent and Ó Caoláin before the Taoiseach responds.
When the approximately 100 old statutes are being prepared for deletion, will there some consultation with the House so that some of them can be retained? I refer, for example, to the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is good legislation even in today's terms. Will Deputies see the list of Acts before the "delete" button is pressed? Many of the Acts continue to have a real impact today.
According to the list I have seen, the legislation to be repealed goes back as far as 1310 and includes the Baths and Warehouses Act, the Chimney Sweepers' Regulation Act and the Act relating to the pillory. While some would say the pillory should be introduced for use against certain Ministers or Members, those are long-redundant legacies. Since we are dealing with an outdated and in some cases unjust legacy of the past, will the Taoiseach earnestly tell the House that he intends to address the ground rent Bill, which also deals with such a legacy?
We cannot have these questions. I call Deputy Kenny.
Will the Taoiseach say whether that is a valid question?
It does not arise.
Of course it does. Will it be included in the proposition to repeal outdated and no longer applicable legislation?
As Deputy Rabbitte said, we have been down this road before. Is the net intention to have a set of revised statutes, which is what we should be undertaking? Is the intended end result that everyone will have open access to what is involved in clearly comprehensible language?
The final reply from the Taoiseach.
A great deal of work is going on in this area. It started when Mr. Gleeson, as Attorney General, listed all the Acts on the Statute Book on a CD-ROM. Modern technology highlighted the fact that we had approximately 500 Acts dating back to 1235, which are still law because they have never been amended or repealed. The consultation process that Deputy Sargent pointed out is important, since we do not want to remove anything that is relevant. The purpose is to get rid of the irrelevant Acts. Over the summer, the Attorney General initiated a public consultation on this important issue through advertisements. I assume that it went to Deputies, but if not, I can arrange that they receive a copy.
Deputy Rabbitte's question is very important: why do it in the first place? It affects practitioners and others using our legislation in all sorts of areas — not just the legal profession, since I understand that our law on conveyancing and liquor licensing is a nightmare. An enormous number of Acts have not been consolidated. Those involved must literally go back to 1300 every time they try to do something. The Deputy and I are familiar with social welfare and tax consolidation, which we have managed, but there are many other areas. The intention is to get rid of unnecessary legislative clutter that is out of date and should be repealed.
The second task is to identify legislation that is still important but should be updated. Much of what is there is relevant but must be brought up to date. Trying to streamline the Statute Book also reduces the transaction costs associated with legal and general administration. The view is that it would in many cases lead to better regulation and by extension better competitiveness. The pre-1922 project will also serve to enhance the accessibility of the law by weeding out those Acts that are no longer relevant. To answer the question of Deputies Kenny and Rabbitte, the end of the line, which will probably take some years to reach, will be when we have got rid of all the Acts that are unnecessary and, second, found a way — as I believe has been done through the statutory law revision — to update Acts that are not irrelevant in one Act. We can do that by working with the language and bringing it forward, and the task has now been identified. Approximately 400 Acts must be addressed, but at least one would be dealing only with the latest or current Act.
The third task concerns where there is a great deal of law, for example, codifying the law on liquor licensing and criminal law, and modernising the law on conveyancing and landlord and tenant law, which would bring all the Acts up.
What about ground rents?
We must initiate a scoping exercise to determine how courts legislation might be modernised. Whenever a Department examined any such area, rather than simply doing what it wanted, it would consolidate. That will take many years, but even if it took 20 or 25, we would be up to date at the end, which is the general purpose. Much as I love the Attorney General and his office, it does not always provide the fastest moving service in the world; that is no disrespect to him, since delays relate to the demand from these Houses. So that we might get a handle on this, I asked the office of the Attorney General to engage PA Consultants to assist the statute law revision unit in drawing up a business plan to advise the Government on the possibility of undertaking a complete restatement of Irish statute law. At least there is a plan to reach the end game, even if it takes some years.
What about ground rents?
They will be included in the review of landlord and tenant legislation.
