I move amendment No. 3:
In page 97, subsection (4), line 39, to delete "the United Kingdom" and substitute "Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
The purpose of this amendment is to achieve uniformity of expression in the Bill. The expression "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is used widely in the Bill, for example, in sections 78 to 830. It is appropriate to have uniformity of expression.
I agree with the Deputy's point about achieving uniformity of expression in the Bill. He made the point that the expression "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is used more widely elsewhere in the Bill. However, the expression "United Kingdom" is used almost as often — for example it is used twice in sections 25, 29, 548 and 832. In addition, the phrase "the Government of the United Kingdom" seems to be favoured to the exclusion of the phrase "the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"— for example in section 832 and twice in Schedule 2.
While one tends to agree that we should strive for as much consistency as possible, the fact remains that there may well be cogent reasons that, in the past, the Oireachtas has used slightly different versions to describe what at first sight might seem the same thing. Therefore, we should be careful in making changes in the consolidation Bill in case we inadvertently make a substantive change to the underlying law.
The amendment relates to section 29 (4). This provision modifies the charge to capital gains tax in the case of gains arising to resident or ordinarily resident individuals who are not domiciled in the State from the disposal of assets which are situated outside the State and the United Kingdom. I am informed that the parliamentary draftsman's office has indicated that replacing the expression "the United Kingdom" with the expression "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" could result in a slight change in the meaning of the underlying legislation. For example, what would be the status of the United Kingdom's areas of the continental shelf? It is arguable whether such areas are or are not part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As it is clear that there may be a possibility that this amendment would result in a substantial change in the law, which is outside the remit of a consolidation Bill, the amendment cannot be accepted.
We would like to have uniformity of expression. However, the parliamentary draftsman's office and the Attorney General's office have advised that there may be a slight possibility that changing such phrases might make a substantive change in the Bill. I cannot take that chance.
I thought the Minister was always prepared to take chances. I understand the reasoning. However, we are riding two horses in using the different expressions in different sections of the Bill on the basis that we did not question why the different expressions were used in the past. If it leads to problems I will not press the amendment. My purpose was to seek uniformity of expression.
I agree that that is desirable. The different phrases were used in different Acts over the period and there may have been good reasons at the time each Act was passed which are not obvious now. We will consider this matter and bear it in mind for the future. However, the offices of the parliamentary draftsman and the Attorney General advised us that to make the change proposed might lead to a substantive change in the law and we cannot take that chance. There might be a question of conferring a status on tax havens near our shores which is not intended. I like to take chances in other areas but creating more tax havens might not be appropriate.
I agree with the Minister's position and we should not accept the amendment. The historic reason for different descriptions in tax law of what appears to be the same jurisdiction is our national inability to get a form of words to describe the Six Counties to which everybody will agree. Do we call it the Six Counties, Northern Ireland or Ulster? Is it the British Government, the English Government or the Westminster Administration? The constitutional position which we recognise is that it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If one were to make realistic amendments we would add the two terms in question together to achieve the correct description.
It was the political delicacy of our predecessors in the Oireachtas which brought about the various uses of the two terms. There has always been a delicacy about the matter. Anybody pushing the titles too far should be reminded of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. We do not have those debates as frequently any more. We should leave well enough alone and rely on the actions of our predecessors by consolidating what they have described in different sections.
Is Deputy Ferris pressing the amendment?
No, but the Minister might want to reply because accommodating different descriptions is no credit to anyone.
Deputy Noonan has given a fair historical account of why these phrases occur in different Bills. Much depended on the people drafting the Bills at a particular time. Perhaps Deputy Noonan was thinking of his background when he mentioned some of the ways we refer to Northern Ireland. During my earlier life I am sure I described that part of the country in ways which are now politically incorrect. Deputy Noonan must have also referred to it in those terms for many years but things have changed. Different phrases were often used depending on the Minister and the civil servants drafting the Bill. We intend to describe the Six Counties in a uniform way in the future.
Do not give that definition in the middle of an election unless it will be used in the future.
I support the Minister. The Bill refers to Acts in 1890, 1927, 1974 and 1976. We are not only dealing with different Ministers but with different generations. The words used in the 1927 and 1890 Acts may have had a slightly different meaning than those used today. We should not change what was in the original Acts.
