Emer Higgins
Dublin Mid-West · Fine Gael · Ireland
“With regard to the background, and as the Senator has touched on, this project was designed on the basis of a 30-year operational lease, with the primary objective of delivering value for money over the lifetime of that lease.”
“Regarding the specific situation in Castlebar that the Senator has raised, Tusla has indicated that following careful consideration, including extensive negotiations, which he referred to, and legal mediation with the developers, it was unable to reach an agreement.”
“They came forward, often at enormous personal cost, and continued to seek answers and accountability when the very systems that should have protected them had failed. For many survivors of child sexual abuse, the abuse does not end when it stops.”
“The strongest projects are those that invest in feasibility studies, site assessments, stakeholder engagement and detailed design from the outset, because decisions made at the earliest stage often have the greatest impact on cost, quality and operational performance.”
“As a result, it made a significant uplift on its original offer. The additional increase sought could not be justified, however, when benchmarked against comparable projects across both Tusla and the HSE. That comes back to the value-for-money argument.”
“Justice Michael White for their significant work and acknowledge how deeply distressing the findings are. They reveal repeated missed opportunities, ignored warning signs and systemic failures that allowed abuse to occur over many years. Children who should have been protected were instead left vulnerable.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Emer Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 22.
“However, there is a requirement to have this matter formally legislated through statute within 120 days. It is proposed therefore to do this through the Finance (Local Property Tax) (Amendment) Bill 2025 which will be enacted before the summer recess.”
“Under this new agreement, Annex III of the VAT directive has been expanded to include gas and electricity. This means that Ireland can apply a reduced rate of 9% to these products in line with other goods and services to which a reduced rate applies. The Government made a decision to avail of this flexibility from 1 May 2022, the start of the next VAT period. The measure has been extended since that time with the last extension being approved in budget 2025 up until 30 April 2025. The cumulative cost of the measure since its introduction is €631 million. The VAT reduction from 1 May will add to the already substantial support provided by Government to help with the cost of living. Finally, it should be noted that the financial resolution allows this reduced rate to apply from 1 May.”
“However a measure such as this does make a difference to households and businesses struggling in this uncertain economic environment by alleviating some of these increased price impacts. I will outline the background to our ability to be able to apply these reduced rates to gas and electricity. With respect to VAT, Ireland has maintained an historical derogation in respect of the VAT rate on gas and electricity since 1991. This allowed us to apply a reduced rate of 13.5% but also prevented us from lowering the VAT rate below 12%. However, following lengthy negotiations, amendments to the VAT directive were provisionally agreed in December 2021 with final sign-off on the amended text at ECOFIN in April 2022. This new agreement came into effect on 5 April 2022.”
“This financial resolution provides for an extension of the temporary reduction in VAT on gas and electricity which is due to expire on 30 April and revert to the original 13.5% VAT rate from 1 May. This financial resolution extends these temporary reductions until the end of October 2025. The estimated cost of this change is €85 million. The Government is conscious that energy prices are beginning to increase again and believes in this context that it is appropriate to extend this reduced rate of VAT, particularly given how high energy costs contribute to a rise in the cost of living. It should be noted that increases in energy prices are driven primarily by global factors over which the Government has no control.”
“I move: (1) THAT the rate of value-added tax chargeable on the supply of electricity provided for by section 46(1)(caa) of, and paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 3 to, the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010 (No. 31 of 2010) and the supply of gas provided for by section 46(1)(caa) of, and paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 3 to, that Act, being 9 per cent until 30 April 2025, be extended until 31 October 2025 and that section 46(1)(caa) of that Act be amended accordingly. (2) THAT this Resolution shall have effect on and from 3 April 2025. (3) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).”
“The work is being progressed as part of the development of a new migration and integration strategy, which will shortly transfer from the Department of equality to the Department of Justice. That move is expected in the coming weeks.”
“As set out in the strategy launched last March, by adopting the mixed accommodation plan, the Government will begin to gradually move away from the reactive crisis response, which I note the Deputy has concerns with. That will allow the State to regain long-term certainty over accommodation availability and adjust commercial accommodation stock as required to meet the needs, and it will mean a far greater degree of control over geographic distribution, allocation and dispersion of applicants. It will also mean much greater lead-in time to the opening of new centres, which will allow for enhanced and more effective local communication. I acknowledge Eibhlin and her team, who have been in touch with the Deputy. The development of those integration links is very important.”
“Accommodation under the comprehensive accommodation strategy, CAS, includes the use of State-owned land for emergency tented, prefab and modular units, the conversion of commercial buildings, and the targeted purchasing of turnkey properties. This will include the design and building of new reception and integration centres and the upgrading of IPAS centres. It will be supplemented as required by high-standard commercial providers also. As developing these more sustainable, State-owned accommodation systems under this strategy will take time, the commissioning of emergency commercial accommodation will continue to be a feature in the short to medium term. However, this accommodation will be concentrated on a short-term basis. If numbers drop, it can then be decommissioned as contracts expire.”
“With respect, I disagree. I do not believe that this is an attack on Tipperary or that the situation is in no man’s land. We have two Ministers engaging in this important priority area for Government. The relevant Minister for accommodation is the Minister, Norma Foley, who is the Minister for equality, disability, integration and youth, and I will pass the Deputy’s feedback on to her. Since the Deputy’s initial remarks were specific with regard to tourism, wanting to protect tourism and getting many of those beds back into tourism, it is important to reiterate that, last year, 12,000 beds were returned from use by the Department’s Ukraine team to tourism. That is a progressive step.”
“I think the Deputy will be particularly interested in this. Figures from Fáilte Ireland last year showed that 12,000 beds were returned from use by the Department's Ukraine response to tourism specifically, which were among the 15,000 beds returned to private use by the Ukraine team in the period. I hope this shows that this will allow growth of the tourism sector in the areas like Dundrum and Tipperary, with an acknowledgment of the contribution made by these areas and providers to support the historic humanitarian and State response to people fleeing the war in Ukraine. There is further detail and I believe it has been provided to the Deputy by our usher.”
“This was based on not accepting new contracts that would take a town’s last operating hotel out of public use for events, holiday or business stays, and day-to day use by the town for food, socialising or leisure, or the events the Deputy named, such as confirmations, communions and all those important parts of growing up. Where a former hotel or tourist accommodation has not been in public use for some time, or has been contracted by the Department to accommodate people fleeing the war in Ukraine, the approach has been to consider offers from such a property, as it was not providing a hotel facility in that community. Significant efforts are under way to source and bring into use suitable long-term international protection accommodation facilities in line with the comprehensive accommodation strategy. I see the clock counting down.”
“In situations where an accommodation centre is located without public transport links within a 2 km radius but where there is manageable access, IPAS will ensure that a shuttle service to a nearby town or a public transport stop is provided. The agreement to not contract IPAS accommodation in a given town’s only operating hotel was agreed by the Government during this period of intense need on the basis of not removing an important amenity from public use. I note Deputy McGrath is saying that many of the hotels he listed were amenities up until the point of contract.”
“However, in future, it is hoped that there will be a greater focus on dispersal strategies as we work toward a more stable and sustainable accommodation system in this sector. The international protection procurement service, IPPS, tries to ensure, in as far as possible, that international protection applicants are not located in remote locations. However, given the demand for accommodation over recent years, this has not always been possible. The Department engages with relevant stakeholders and accommodation service providers as appropriate to ensure that international protection applicants placed in accommodation in areas that are farther from urban centres, towns or villages have access to transportation as a basic requirement.”
“In addition to the Ukraine response, the increase in applications for international protection places a legal duty on the State to accommodate the additional applicants. Emergency centres have been opened in all parts of the country, and intensive efforts were made, as part of a whole-of-Government response, to ensure people in need were provided with shelter and support. Against the backdrop over the past three years of unique events in Ukraine, increased need and the acute shortage of accommodation, it has not been possible for the Department to apply specific policies in respect of geographic distribution of accommodation centres. Consequently, every suitable offer of much-needed accommodation has had to be considered and appraised.”
“I thank Deputy McGrath for raising this issue, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for equality, disability and youth, Norma Foley, who cannot be with us this morning. Ireland currently provides accommodation to approximately 33,000 people applying for international protection and has also welcomed more than 114,000 people from Ukraine since 2022. Our accommodation systems have had to expand at a rapid pace over the past two years in response to this sharp increase in need among both those groups. The 114,000 arriving from Ukraine, combined with the significant increase in applications for international protection since 2022, have come at a time when accommodation in Ireland is at a very short supply across all dimensions.”
“I fully support the mandate of our newly and duly elected Ceann Comhairle to get a 24th Dáil day sitting in that Chair and to continue to carry on her democratic duties to ensure the functioning of this Dáil Chamber, as is the democratic duty of all of us.”
“What we have not been able to do is come before Oireachtas committees, which is something that so many of our backbenchers and I are keen to get established.”
“Dramatics do not help our country and do not help our people. Opposition politics cannot just be about headlines. They also have to be about the country and the nation's interest. It has never been more important to buckle down and get working on behalf of the people of Ireland to protect our stability, our jobs in the face of potential tariffs, the taxes that support our most vulnerable - our older people and children and those in need of healthcare and disability services - and our country's future. Despite the Opposition's best efforts to destabilise Government, Ministers have been working to deliver on our programme for Government commitments and to protect those jobs and our economy in the face of global uncertainty.”
“Last week, we in this Chamber took a vote and if that vote were to be taken again, the outcome would be the same. Respecting outcomes of votes is the very basis for a functioning democracy. The Ceann Comhairle has only sat in that Chair for 23 Dáil sitting days and in that time, we have had two days of chaos, obstruction, ugliness and disrespect, and the exact opposite of a fair wind. That cannot and should not become the norm because dignity and respect in the workplace have to extend to this Chamber.”
“I rise to my feet today, not in support of a particular individual, but in support of the sanctity of an office that upholds the most important thing any sovereign nation has: its democracy. We in this Chamber elected in a fair and free vote Deputy Verona Murphy as Ceann Comhairle of the Thirty-fourth Dáil and as the first ever female Ceann Comhairle in the history of the State.”
“Before I conclude, I thank everybody who spent long days and evenings sifting through Ireland's history in our statute book. I thank all Members for their involvement in this debate, in particular Senator Victor Boyhan who worked so collaboratively with us in order to make the change I will introduce. I look forward to further engagement on Committee Stage.”
“As we have all acknowledged, over 40,000 secondary instruments have been reviewed by the Law Reform Commission to ascertain whether they were obsolete or to be repealed or retained. The Bill is the seventh statute law revision Bill in a programme, the aim of which is to ensure that Ireland has a modern and accessible Statute Book. Tidying up all of the spent and obsolete secondary instruments made between 1 January 1821 and 1 January 1861 will contribute significantly towards improving the overall regulatory environment in Ireland. It will simplify and modernise our laws and make the Statute Book more intelligible. That will save time and money for those who need to know what laws are enforced and it will make it easier for the public to access justice.”
“It was interesting to hear from Deputy Ward that 20 years ago he worked on this project under a different guise. I commend him on his work and his interest in this project over the past 20 years. He shows an interest in modernising our statute laws, which is to be commended. I take on board his suggestion regarding the ongoing consolidation of Acts, rather than repealing an Act and introducing it in a more modern form, and having an Act and then an amendment to an Act. He may already be aware that the Law Reform Commission has revised Acts available on its website, of which there are 500 so far. A lot of progress is happening. The Bill we have considered today proposes the revocation of all statutory and prerogative instruments made before 1 January 1861, except for the instruments which will be retained in Schedule 1.”
“In many cases, that is what they were. To be totally frank, I do not know whether that is possible or how big a job it would be if it was possible. It is certainly something I will consider and I will work with my colleagues in the Department and Law Reform Commission on that. Deputy Connolly had a specific question on the commencement of legislation and on statutory reviews. That is beyond the scope of the Bill. She made reference to an OECD report. I would like to put on the record that the report referred to the SLRC Acts in Ireland as impressive. We cannot get much higher praise from it than that. Deputy O'Donoghue spoke about the fact that the Bill will reduce the burden on businesses, and I fully agree with him on that. It will have a positive impact.”
“The Sinnott family and his constituents might benefit from knowing that scans of each order in full are now available on the Law Reform Commission website. It is to be hoped that is a trip down their own memory lane. Regarding his comments on commercial rates, and the fact that they are legally established on 200-year-old laws, I fully appreciate where he is coming from. Given my former role as a Minister of State in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I understand we have a changing landscape when it comes to how business is being done. Perhaps that needs to be examined. That would be a matter for the Minister for local government. Deputy Cathal Crowe suggested posthumous pardons for people who were killed by laws that are now obsolete. Deputy McGuinness referred to such cases as attempts to criminalise acts of survival.”
“Deputy Robert O'Donoghue said that we are considered world leaders when it comes to updating our statute books. I think that is really valid. It is probably because we needed to be, as Ireland has a unique legislative past that has left us with laws from the passage of parliaments in Ireland, England, Great Britain and the UK as well as our Oireachtas. Deputy Gibney correctly called out the important role our Law Reform Commission plays in carrying out public service. Many of our colleagues today have acknowledged the incredible, painstaking work it has done. Deputy Connolly also commended the Library and Research Service publication that has provided us with a summary of that detailed work. Deputy Malcolm Byrne had two very interesting thoughts. One related to the Sinnott family and the amnesty he spoke about.”
“He also spoke about the impact these laws had at the time and on our own Irish history but also the impact they had on other countries in terms of the spread of our diaspora. He mentioned Australia in particular. Only last week I was in Australia as part of the Government's St. Patrick's Day programme and had the opportunity to meet many descendants of people from that time, Irish people over there. The Deputy is right that many of these laws were the catalyst that led to this situation. Deputy Ó Snodaigh had a question about the laws that were not going to be revoked. Section 1 provides that the instruments are all going to be revoked, unless they are actually named as what will be retained. Some 37,000 were already identified as obsolete as part of this body of work. The vast majority of these are all being revoked.”
“Before I begin my closing remarks, I would like to thank the Members who participated in this debate. It has been a really informed and thoughtful discussion. Deputy Cathal Crowe mentioned that I was taking copious notes. I will paraphrase some comments. Deputy Farrell said that this body of work has afforded us all a trip down memory lane, and it really has. Deputy Ó Murchú said this was an important piece of legislative housekeeping, which I thought was quite good terminology. Deputy Ó Snodaigh's passion for history really shines when he talks about particular incidents that have been captured in legislation. Often that goes as far back as Famine times, as Deputy Mattie McGrath has said.”
“This Bill’s enactment will deliver benefits because it will facilitate the process of public governance reform, reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and citizens, ensure our Statute Book is significantly more modern and enhance public access to the laws that govern our people as they go about their business in their daily lives. I commend the Bill to the House.”
“I will be bringing amendments on Committee Stage to revoke the 1685 order. I thank Senator Boyhan for his work on the Bill as well as those who engaged with me in the Seanad on this. We had a real example of meaningful engagement with both me and officials in my Department as well as the Law Reform Commission regarding the appropriateness of retaining this order on the Statute Book. It is a really good example of practical and respectful engagement between Ministers and Members of the Oireachtas to address concerns and strengthen the legislative process. This Bill, as Members will have gathered, is rather technical but it is really important and necessary. It represents another step in the journey to clarifying and simplifying the Statute Book.”
“Section 7 provides a Short Title for this Bill when enacted and collective citation for all the Statute Law Revision Acts to date. Schedule 1 lists the specific instruments that are to be retained. Schedule 2 lists the specific instruments identified in the course of the review as appropriate for repeal at this stage because they have ceased to be relevant or have become unnecessary. In the course of the debate in the Seanad a number of concerns were raised regarding item 1 in Schedule 1, namely, the Genealogical Office Order of 1685. I am happy to inform the House that following engagement by my Department and the Law Reform Commission with the Senator who raised this, Senator Boyhan, as well as the Genealogical Society of Ireland and the director of the National Library, these concerns have been addressed.”
“There are more than 3,000 instruments listed in the Schedule following the review of all available secondary legislation from 1821 to 1860. Section 4 allows each instrument listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to be officially cited using the citation provided in column (4) of this Schedule. Section 5 provides savings clauses. Sections 5(1) and 5(2) provide that the inclusion of an Act in the Schedule shall not be construed as meaning that the Act, or any provision of it, was of full force and effect immediately before the passing of this Act. Section 6 supplements existing evidence laws, allowing for prima facie evidence of instruments made before 1 January 1861 to be presented in courts and legal proceedings by producing a published copy from specified sources such as the Dublin Gazette or the London Gazette .”
“Two of the instruments being retained in Part 2 of Schedule 1 are notices defining the parts of the River Shannon over which the Shannon Commissioners may exercise their powers under the Shannon Navigation Act 1839. These were made pursuant to section 39 of the Shannon Navigation Act 1839, which remains in force. They remain valid for regulatory purposes as they define the parts of the River Shannon to which the Shannon Navigation Act 1839 applied. The revocation in section 2 of the Bill is a general revocation provision which will revoke all instruments made prior to 1 January 1861, even where those instruments are not expressly included in the Schedules. Section 3, for ease of reference, refers to the secondary instruments specified in Schedule 2 which are revoked.”
“These instruments are suitable for revocation because they have no ongoing relevance in this jurisdiction; and-or are spent, which means they have ceased to be in force, or are obsolete, that is they deal with a subject matter which no longer exists, which has been superseded by subsequent legislation or which is no longer regulated by legislation. The instruments set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 were formerly set out at reference numbers 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule 1 to the Statute Law Revision Act 2015. This latter Schedule retained 43 instruments. Forty of these instruments were names and arms instruments. The Law Reform Commission conducted further research in recent weeks which revealed that these names and arms instruments did not in fact require retention and these are now being revoked.”
“This Bill will also repeal those instruments enacted before 1 January 1821 that are still in force and were not repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 2015. The process leading to the Bill involved a review, carried out by the Law Reform Commission and sponsored by my Department, of more than 40,000 secondary instruments to ascertain if they were obsolete or were to be repealed or retained. Of those, more than 3,000 will be repealed by the Bill attached to this memorandum and they are listed in Schedule 2. I will outline to the House the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 of the Bill provides definitions for terms used throughout the Bill. Section 2 of the Bill revokes all instruments passed prior to 1 January 1861 other than those retained instruments specified in the first Schedule.”
“It is in the public interest to proceed with this Bill as the proposals will assist in reducing the regulatory burden for businesses, industry and citizens by simplifying the complex stock of legislation currently on the Statute Book and this will also help to provide legal clarity. The importance of simplifying this complex stock was noted with approval by the OECD review, Better Regulation in Ireland 2010, which reported that initiatives such as the Statute Law Revision Acts were impressive efforts to address the challenge and improve accessibility. As I said in my opening remarks, the principal purpose of the Bill is to repeal spent and obsolete secondary instruments enacted on or after 1 January 1821 and before 1 January 1861.”
“To date, more than 100,000 pieces of legislation and secondary instruments have been reviewed and either expressly or implicitly repealed under the programme. This Bill, when enacted, together with the six previous Statute Law Revision Acts, will collectively be the most extensive set of repealing measures in the history of the State and the most extensive set of statute law revision measures ever enacted anywhere in the world. The benefits of statute law revision are well documented and include the creation of certainty as to which laws remain in force; the modernisation of the Statute Book; the enhancement of public accessibility to the Statute Book; and the codification or consolidation of the statute law of the State.”
“The purpose of the programme is to repeal legislation which has ceased to be in force due to change of circumstances or the passage of time and legislation which, while technically in force, is no longer of relevance in practice. There has been a particular need for such revision in Ireland because of our unique legislative past which has left us with a complex stock of legislation, with enactments from the Parliaments of Ireland, England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom as well as our own Oireachtas. The statute law revision programme is already responsible for six distinct but complementary Statute Law Revision Acts between 2005 and 2015, which have successfully repealed all obsolete primary legislation enacted prior to independence and, in addition, have revoked all obsolete secondary legislation made up to 1 January 1821.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to be bringing the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024 to the House today. The Bill was introduced in the Seanad on 23 October 2024 and it passed Report and Final Stages in that House on 5 March this year. The Statute Law Revision Bill 2024 is the latest in a series of measures that have been enacted to modernise and improve public accessibility of the Statute Book and secondary legislation. It is vital that laws and regulations in Ireland are both fit for purpose and regularly reviewed and updated. The statute law revision programme is Ireland’s national programme to identify obsolete and spent primary and secondary legislation and remove it from Ireland’s Statute Book.”
“For these reasons, I am suggesting that this issue be looked at in detail for possible consideration in the next statute law revision Bill, research for which is due to be completed by the end of this year. This will give the Law Reform Commission sufficient time to complete its research. It will also give the opportunity to obtain legal certainty regarding the order without posing any undue delay to the passage of this Bill and the important work of ensuring that the vast range of obsolete instruments are removed from the Irish Statute Book. As the Senator noted, this is an extremely complex area and further investigation may well be warranted. On foot of the concerns raised by the Senator, and that have been raised with him, our position is that we will endeavour to look at those.”
“Following our discussions on Committee Stage last week, the Law Reform Commission has now initiated further research and has sought to engage with the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland to investigate the matter further and to reconfirm its position on the order. The Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland is the statutory body responsible for this area and, therefore, I believe it is appropriate to go back to it with the concerns that have been raised and to seek legal certainty regarding the potential impact of revoking an order that it states it specifically relies on. To reiterate, no objections were raised in respect of any of the proposed retentions or revocations during the public consultations in 2015 and 2022.”
“I thank the Senator not just for tabling these amendments but for engaging with us so collaboratively over the past week. As I stated on Committee Stage, both my Department and the Law Reform Commission believe that it is legally justifiable to include the 1685 order on the list for retention. However, we acknowledge the concerns that were raised in the House last week and as a result, and on foot of discussions in this House, officials in my Department have engaged with the Genealogical Society of Ireland to get a greater understanding of those concerns. During the public consultations that were carried out on two separate occasions, most recently in 2022, the Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland stated that it relied on the 1685 order and that this order had never lapsed and, therefore, needed to be retained.”
“It will simplify and modernise our law and make the Statute Book more intelligible. It will save time and money for those who need to know what laws are enforced and will make it easier for people to access justice. This Bill will mean that all primary legislation up to the formation of the State will have been reviewed and the next step is to review all secondary legislation. This is about transparency for our laws and digitalising and giving more people access to the laws that govern our society. I thank everybody for their involvement in the Bill to date.”
“I thank Members for their co-operation and their input into this Bill. The Bill we considered here today proposes the revocation of all statutory and prerogative instruments made before 1 January 1861, except for five instruments, which will be retained. More than 40,000 secondary instruments were reviewed by the Law Reform Commission to ascertain whether they were obsolete or whether they needed to be repealed or retained. That was a huge body of work and I thank everybody involved in that. This Bill is the seventh statute law revision Bill in a programme the aim of which is to ensure that Ireland has a modern and accessible Statute Book. Tidying up all our spent and obsolete secondary instruments made between 1 January 1821 and 1 January 1861 will contribute significantly towards improving the overall regulatory environment in Ireland.”
“These are very minor technical amendments. They are typographical amendments that were recommended by the Law Commission. They do not fundamentally change the Bill in any way or the policy behind the Bill. They are merely technical.”
“These are minor technical amendments about replacing the phrase "Parliament of Parliament" with the correct legal term, "Prorogation of Parliament" throughout Schedule 2. These amendments do not in any way fundamentally change the Bill. They are not amendments to policy in any way. They are technical minor amendments.”
“The Law Reform Commission has now recommended that the order be removed from Schedule 1 and instead be included in Schedule 2, which is the list of instruments to be revoked that Senator Boyhan spoke about. It is a technical amendment. It does not fundamentally change the Bill in any way and is not an amendment to policy. Following on from this amendment, our position is that Smuggling Order 1807 should be included in Schedule 2, instruments to be revoked. SCHEDULE 2”
“Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are regarding Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Bill. These are technical amendments which remove the instrument known as Smuggling Order 1807 from Schedule 1 of the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024, instruments to be retained. The purpose of this order was to allow for the payment of rewards to soldiers who assisted customs officers in making any seizures of prohibited or uncustomed goods during the Napoleonic Wars. This instrument was originally retained in statute law when we revised it in 2015, and following the Second Stage debate, the Law Reform Commission carried out further research on the appropriateness of including the order in Schedule 1 of the Bill.”
“I thank the Senator. To reiterate, the Office of the Chief Herald was established in 1943 as a mechanism to fold the office into the Irish State. Two separate orders happened to that. That is where it became part of our more modern history as we entered into our Republic. I appreciate where the Senator is coming from in his comments on Schedule 2 and potential revocation. That is something we could look at in a little bit more detail, but to reiterate, if we were to do that here and now, we do not have any legal clarity on what that would mean for the Office of the Chief Herald, which is in existence today. That is the issue there. It is something we can take away and look at. As the Senator said, this Bill was initiated in the Seanad and has yet to move through the Dáil. Therefore, it is something we can look at at that point.”
“Based on this, and indeed the public consultation that was carried out, both my Department and the Law Reform Commission believe that it is legally justifiable to include the 1685 order on the list for retention.”