First Reading On motion made and seconded, the Optical Council (Amendment) Bill (No. I of 2026) was read a first time. Second Reading THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION BILL (No. XXXI of 2025) Order for Second Reading read.

Yes, hon. Attorney-General! (5.18 p.m.) The Attorney-General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, SC): I beg to move that the Law Reform Commission Bill (No. XXXI of 2025) be read a second time. This Bill, Madam Speaker, is at its core about strengthening one of the quiet, but essential institutions of our legal system. The Law Reform Commission seldom catches headlines. Yet, it is only through sustained methodical and principal review that the law can remain intelligible, relevant and just. The Law Reform Commission of Mauritius was first established in 1993 through the Law Reform Commission Act 1992 which itself was repealed in 2006 with the enactment of the Law Reform Commission Act 2005. Since then, no improvement has been brought. It is now time to bring about sweeping reforms to set up a new framework fit for the demands of the present. The stark reality, Madam Speaker, is that the LRC has, over the last 20 years, published no less than 195 papers. Yet, few, too few, may I add, recommendations have found their way to legislation. To quote the opinion paper of the LRC in support of this fundamental change in the legislation, I quote – “This persistent gap between research and enactment is symptomatic of a deeper structural weakness. The Commission has been tasked with a mission, but not endowed with the legal instruments necessary to make its work effective.” The purpose of the Bill is, therefore, simple enough – to repeal the existing Law Reform Commission Act to replace it with a legislative framework more suited to the needs of our country today. Laws, Madam Speaker, do not stand still. They must evolve with society, with economic realities, with technological change and with our collective aspirations as a democratic state governed by the rule of law. The Law Reform Commission has, over the past years, contributed meaningfully to this process. Experience has shown however, that its existing statutory framework has become too narrow, and at times, administratively constraining. This Bill seeks to give the institution the tools it needs to discharge its mandate more fully. I must immediately point out, Madam Speaker, that the impetus for this reform came from the Commission itself. It was the Commission, which having worked within the constraints of the existing Act for a number of years, identified the areas in which the legislative framework fell short and formulated proposals for its modernisation. That is as it should be. No institution is better placed to assess the adequacy of its own governing statute than the one which must operate it daily. I was happy to examine those proposals carefully with members of my office. Having satisfied myself that they were well-founded and in the public interest, I have deemed it fit to carry them forward in the form of this Bill. Madam Speaker, I shall now delve brief into the principal provisions of the new law and the reasons which have prompted them. Clause 3(1) of the Bill establishes the Commission, defines its core responsibility, that is, to keep the laws of Mauritius under review and to propose reforms aimed at simplifying, modernising and consolidating those laws. Importantly, clause 3(2) of the Bill provides that “the Commission shall, in the discharge of its functions and exercise of its powers, act independently and impartially and shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority.” The Commission is also constituted as a body corporate under subclause (3), and these provisions give the institution a clear statutory identity and the autonomy necessary to carry out serious reform work. Clause 4(1) of the Bill redefines and expands the functions of the Commission. It expressly empowers the Commission to engage in research and studies to ensure that the laws of Mauritius evolve to meet the contemporary needs and challenges of society and the legal community. This reflects that a deliberate shift in philosophy. Law reform should not be purely reactive. It should be anticipatory. It should identify emerging issues before they harden into systemic conditions and problems. Clause 4(1) of the Bill also provides that the Commission may consider proposals for reform made to it by the Attorney-General or by any Ministry. Under the previous Act, only the Attorney-General could direct the Commission to examine any aspect of the law. The extension to Ministries is an important development. In practice, Ministries are closest to the operational realities of legislation within their respective sectors. By enabling the Ministries to make formal proposals, this Bill fosters a more collaborative and informed reform process across Government. The same clause confirms the Commission’s power to make recommendations to the Attorney-General and any Ministry on its own initiative. This is not an incidental point. It underscores the intellectual independence of the Commission and its role as a body capable of generating reform ideas grounded in research, consultation and comparative analysis. Clause 4(1) of the Bill further provides for the Commission to request information from any Ministry, organisation or individual in relation to the law reform process, and to engage public involvement by publicising its work and conducting public hearings. Law reform, Madam Speaker, must not be an insular exercise. It must be informed by public participation and professional expertise. Clause 4(2) of the Bill adds a practical requirement: where the Commission makes recommendations to the Attorney-General or any Ministry, it shall, as far as practicable, attach a draft Bill to those recommendations. This ensures that reform proposals are not merely conceptual but are carried through to the level of initial legislative drafting. Clause 4(3) of the Bill requires the Commission to be proactive and submit to the Attorney-General, at least once every year, a programme for the review of specific aspects of the laws of Mauritius with a view to their development or improvement. This introduces discipline of forward planning that was absent from the previous framework. A further innovation, Madam Speaker, lies in the introduction of structured post- legislative analysis. This is new. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that where legislation has been enacted wholly or partly on the basis of the Commission’s recommendations, the Commission may subsequently monitor its operation, assess whether the objectives set out in its report or recommendations have been achieved, identify any unintended consequences or deficiencies arising from the enactment, and, where necessary, make further recommendations for reform. This is a significant step forward. Too often legislation is passed and thereafter assumed to function as intended – and more often than we would like to admit, it does not! A mature legal system, Madam Speaker, must be willing to review itself. Post- legislative scrutiny allows to refine the law in the light of experience rather than theory alone. Clause 6 preserves the Attorney-General’s power to direct the Commission to examine any aspect of the laws of Mauritius at any time. The Commission is required to report to the Attorney-General on the results of any such review, including recommendations as it deems necessary. Recently, Madam Speaker, I have asked the LRC to review the functions of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission and to report on what obtains in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, especially where there is now a need to separate the functions of that Commission in a Judicial Service Commission on the one hand, and a Legal Service Commission, on the other. The LRC’s recommendations are eagerly awaited. Clause 7 of the Bill addresses a practical difficulty which has arisen in the past. The Bill designates the Attorney-General’s Office as the liaison authority were the Commission requests information from any Ministry. The Solicitor-General shall appoint an officer of the AGO to act as the liaison authority’s representative. In reality, delays or reluctance in providing information have sometimes impeded reform initiatives. By formalising this liaison mechanism, the Bill seeks to ensure that work is not stalled by administrative obstacles. Part III of the Bill deals with the Administration and Management of the Commission. The Commission is to be administered by Law Reform Board constituted under Clauses 8 and 9 with such broad representations brought from the Judiciary, the Office of Attorney- General, the Office of the DPP, the private legal profession, the University of Mauritius and 2 representatives of civil society – and now, and that is the novelty, the Director of the Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies. This recommendation of the LRC was grounded in commonsense but was also a legal imperative. The presence of a Director-General of the IJLS will add another perspective and will ensure that the Commission has at its disposal the specialised experience of an institution dedicated to advanced legal education, research and training. The Board is empowered to set up Advisory Committees under Clause 11 to assist in the discharge of its functions. Now, Clauses 12 to 14 provide for the staffing of the Commission, including the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer qualified in law and experienced in legal research, a Secretary, and such other officers and consultants as the Commission considers necessary. Part IV provides for the financial governance of the Commission, including a General Fund, annual estimates of income and expenditure to be submitted to the AGO and an annual report and audited accounts to be laid before the Assembly by the Attorney General. The House will note, in particular, the savings and transitional provisions under clause 24 which ensure continuity by preserving the position and terms of appointment of existing staff and Board members. All rights, obligations and liabilities subsisting in favour of or against the Commission under the repealed Law Reform Commission Act shall, obviously, continue to exist under the new legislation, and all assets and funds shall vest accordingly. This is both fair and pragmatic. Institutional reform, Madam Speaker, should not unnecessarily disrupt the human and operational foundations upon which effective public bodies depend. Madam Speaker, beyond these specific provisions lies a broader a vision. The strengthening of the Law Reform Commission is part of the wider commitment to the quality of our legislation. Good governance requires not only the enactment of laws, but their constant refinement. It requires a willingness to simplify where complexity has accumulated, to modernise where provisions has become obsolete, and to consolidate where fragmentation has impaired coherence. This new term, Madam Speaker, will thus see landmark legislation being introduced in this House, to enact profound change in the investigation of the serious crime, a new approach to certificates of character, the revamping of the organisation of sports in this country, the setting up of a modern child adoption framework, a review of sexual offences, a new Domestic Abuse Bill and much awaited amendments to the Criminal Code, including, inter alia, the addition of feminicide to the list of offences against the person. After that even more legislative improvement will be coming, and having a fully empowered Law Reform Commission will only make it faster and more potent. In supporting this Bill, Madam Speaker, hon. Members are adjusting the machinery of the statutory body, but they also reaffirming the principle that the law must remain a living instrument, one that truly serves the people of Mauritius. And with these words, Madam Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House. Mr Mohamed rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. (5.32 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, I have listened with a lot of attention and interest to the hon. Attorney General and he has been very explicit and in a very detailed manner, explained the purpose and the reasoning behind this piece of legislation. So, let me at the outset congratulate the hon. Attorney General and the officers of his Office who have done once again a formidable job in preparing this piece of legislation. It is in my view very important to set the scene in order to show what his intent is but let me very briefly comment on an aspect of the law which I find very interesting and it is new. It is at clause 3(2) which talks about the independence, impartiality of this commission. Now, this is a very important part. Cela peut passer inaperçu but so important. That shows that this is an institution that has a lot of value to this Government. An institution, because it has its value, it is being put in the law that it will operate independently and impartially. And not only that, it goes as far as to say that it shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority. And for that matter, it also means not under the control of Government or any other entity whatsoever. When you look at the old law – well, the actual law before it is repealed – this element of impartiality and independence was not there. Not to say that they, in any way, acted under the control of any authority but to underline that part in the law, is what makes this piece of legislation, this Bill that is proposed, very modern and in line with all the legislations that exist in other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia, United Kingdom and New Zealand. The other element that I find of utmost interest is the post-legislative analysis. Very often, we are to ponder why is it important to have the possibility to have a post-legislative analysis of a piece of legislation and I connect this with the public involvement in law reform, hearings that can be conducted by the Law Reform Commission. Imagine the scenario that you have a piece of legislation that is passed and you do not have, as a matter of statute, the power for an analysis post the legislation being passed in Parliament. Then, you will have to wait for the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministers concerned by certain pieces of legislation, to go to Cabinet, give instructions to the Attorney General’s office, and then have a new proposal for changes to the law whereas, if you have a Law Reform Commission that will monitor the operation of an enactment as it is proposed here, where it has been wholly or partly based on its recommendations; if you are going to have a commission that is going to monitor the operation, assess – as the Bill says – the extent to which the enactment has achieved its objectives or not, propose changes, corrective measures and at the same time, if you have that very same commission that will hold hearings, listen to people, listen to experts who will say exactly where you have to bring corrective measures. This is a very important element within this legislation. And when I have, Madam Speaker, read the other law reform bodies that exist in the Commonwealth, it is clear that it is now in line with many other jurisdictions and this is why I once again would like to congratulate the Attorney General. With that piece of legislation as proposed, what do I surmise? That clearly, there is better governance. With this piece of legislation as proposed, there will be better governance. It is more effective reform – I have just spoken about the post-legislative analysis – there will clearly be greater transparency in the way that things will run from thereafter with public hearings and formal reporting that will improve trust because at the end, we have to improve trust with members of the public at large. Faster reform, this is another element that is brought forward. The Bills then will be drafted with recommendations, will speed up parliamentary consideration. There is no doubt about that. And I end on that responsible stewardship. When you take note of the provisions in the Bill for explicit budgeting, auditing and transition safeguards to protect resources and personnel, this is responsible stewardship. So, for all those reasons – I say it again – better governance, more effective reform, greater transparency, faster reform and responsible stewardship, I congratulate the hon. Attorney General once again. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Your winding-up speech! (5.38 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, may I now present my summing-up which obviously will be short and sweet given the fact that we have not had much objection to this Bill and to add to the words of hon. Mohamed on the Bill, it is indeed an institution which has a lot of value for this Government. And what I want to add at this stage is, in fact, this Bill came to the AGO as an appendix to the paper issued by the LRC after its opinion came of its own volition on the amendments which the LRC thought had to be brought to the Act in order for them to do better work. And today, the Chief Executive Officer of the LRC is present to witness the passing of this new legislation, which will give, of course, a serious impetus to the legislative process. And, I do not think that there is much to add except to confirm what my learned friend has just stated, that it is now in line with most of the other Commonwealth jurisdictions which are of the same democratic system.

Thank you. You have to commend the Bill again.

I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE (Madam Speaker in the Chair) The Law Reform Commission Bill (No. XXXI of 2025) was considered and agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Law Reform Commission Bill (No. XXXI of 2025) was read a third time and passed.

Adjournment! Hon. Prime Minister!