Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate- 7th February 2007

Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 - Second Stage Debate - 7th February 2007.
Mr. Norris: I thank Senator Henry for sharing time. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I had thought I would be delayed elsewhere but I would not have missed this for the world because it is fascinating. I echo the compliments expressed to the members of the team present in the Gallery, who have done a remarkable amount of work. I am reminded of what Napoleon said with regard to codifying French law under the Code Napoleon. Before Napoleon took this step, the law in France was, like Paris, chaotic and medieval. This was at a time when Dublin was being developed as the first fully planned city in Europe. The work done by those present in the Gallery represents an enormous undertaking and I congratulate them.
I agree with Senator Henry that it would have been immense fun to engage in such work. What we are being presented with is a complete, documented social history. I will return to that matter later because I first wish to make some reasonable and rational points before indulging myself, as others have done, in the delights of the archaeology of the legal system, which are revealed in this rather large Bill.
So much work has been done and I hope we have taken a further step and have, or are about to, catalogue these Acts by subject. The latter would be extremely helpful, particularly if one could browse the entire list of Acts relating to conveyancing or whatever through the use of computer technology. When new Bills are produced, they always have attached to them a rigmarole of the Acts which must be repealed. In this Bill, we are being presented with a raft of such Acts.
My second point is that I hope the important process in which we are engaged will continue. I recall with great pleasure the Leader’s digressive and discursive contribution to the debate on previous legislation in which she commented upon the arcane delights of Acts such as those to which the Bill refers. This is an immensely interesting subject because it provides one with a picture of the history involved. The process should continue. We dealt with legislation of the sort before us on a previous occasion. May I steal a phrase and state that there is “A lot done, more to do”. Does that ring a bell?
The Local and Personal Acts have not yet been examined. There are also private Acts and the Statutory Rules and Orders. As Senator Brian Hayes indicated, some of the legislation and statutory instruments introduced post-1922 needs to be examined. Members on all sides are of the opinion that this work is not finished and we look forward, in the knowledge that a great deal has been already done, to a further tidying up operation.
A constituent contacted me regarding the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which remains on the Statute Book. This is an extremely defective item of legislation. I spoke to the principal adviser present in the Gallery - he has been already named and rightly celebrated - who indicated that there are two processes at issue here. What is being done in the Bill merely involves retaining or repealing legislation. The other form of Bill in this area involves repealing and replacing legislation. Let us move on and engage in repealing and replacing legislation because it is ridiculous to have in place an Act from 1911 that does not meet current conditions. Luckily, we did not experience incidents similar to those which incurred in Britain involving children being savaged by pit bull terriers, Staffordshire pups, etc. However, there is nothing to prevent them from happening in the future and we need to consider the matter before a tragedy occurs. I hope, therefore, that consideration will be given to introducing the relevant legislation.
I disagree with colleagues in respect of the Irish language. It was a wonderful idea to try to extinguish the Irish language by legislation. We are the most awkward, difficult, rebellious people on earth. The Irish language has been a total calamity. The best way to revive it would be to outlaw it and to make the penalty for using it death by hanging in a public place. There then would be queues of people outside Linguaphone intent on learning the language.
Mr. Ryan: There would be no fear of the Senator-----
Mr. Norris: Tá an Ghaeilge go flúirseach agam, a Seanadóir. We will have none of that old guff from Senator Ryan.
Ms O’Rourke: What is Senator Norris uttering?
Mr. Norris: Trinity College had the first chair of Irish in this country. As chairman of the Friends of the Library I presented to the library the Aibidil, which was the first printed book in Irish. It was written by a Canon in St. Patrick’s and printed-----
Dr. Mansergh: The spirit of W.B. Yeats.
Mr. Norris: I hope that does not make the Senator feel any more inferior. If he is feeling rotten tomorrow, I will pay for the treatment for the inferiority complex because Trinity is a very fine institution, as is UCC.
Mr. B. Hayes: There is an election in the offing.
Mr. Norris: On the Bill of Rights 1688, the Leader was right to hone in on that. What interesting legislation. That was the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, the glorious revolution, and the Bill of Rights was to secure religious liberty because people were terrified that the Stuarts were secretly Roman Catholics. The libertarian aspects of the Bill have been retained. The one being got rid of is the one that permitted only Protestants to bear arms. It is about time that one was repealed. I have no difficulty with that.
Ms O’Rourke: That is jolly good of the Senator.
Mr. Norris: It is rather decent of me. This is a real compact history of the country. The first one mentioned is the erection of castle and fortifications at Dublin - that takes it back to 1204 - and the establishment of fairs at Donnybrook. It probably goes on to the extinguishing by Act of the fairs of Donnybrook because they became so outrageous. They added the word “Donnybrook” into universal language.
I am very pleased, as a former member of the board of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, to have the Act of 1474, the Confirmation to St. Patrick’s Cathedral Dublin of foundation etc. and especially the Constitution called Dignitas Decant etc. retained, and the Marsh’s Library Act 1707, also a period of extraordinary religious turbulence, when the great Bouhéreau came here and donated his entire library. Archbishop Narcissus Marsh left money to erect that beautiful building in St. Patrick’s Close.
I am most interested in the Whiteboy Act, which is being retained. Apparently, there was a Supreme Court case in the past 20 years or so which held that it was still active. That is particularly interesting because this very night there is a television programme on RTE about the whiteboys.
Ms O’Rourke: No. That is about the Molly Maguires.
Mr. Norris: But they were regarded in America and so described as a branch of the whiteboys, and they were so described this morning in an advertisement on RTE.
Ms O’Rourke: It is on at 9.30 tonight.
Mr. Norris: We had better hurry up this debate. I want to mention two other matters.
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, I am informed your time is concluded.
Mr. Norris: I believe I have a minute remaining. I will only take half of it. The General Post Office Dublin Act, establishing that wonderful building in O’Connell Street designed by Francis Johnston, is being retained as is the Dublin Science and Art Museum Act 1884. We should be grateful to the RDS because they took over this building from the Duke of Leinster and preserved it. They had their science reading room, lecture theatre and concert hall and they built the wonderful cultural complex of the National Museum, the Natural History Museum, the National Gallery and the National Library. This is the Act that led to the foundation of the museum. We all stand greatly indebted to the people of the Royal Dublin Society.