Amendments No. 107, 108, 113 to 121, inclusive, 130 and 131 are related and may be taken together. Agreed.
SECTION 860.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 1167, subsection (1), line 14, after "oath" to insert "or affirmation".
The purpose of this amendment is to remove ambiguity and achieve adaptation of existing law and practice by making express provision for an affirmation which in the case of a conscientious objection is the legal alternative to the word "oath".
Deputy Ferris's intention is to remove ambiguity and inconsistency from the Bill by making express provision for an affirmation which, in the case of conscientious objection to taking an oath, is the legal alternative to an oath. There is no ambiguity or inconsistency in the Bill in this area. The Interpretation Act, 1937, already makes express provision for the term "oath" to include affirmation and for the term "swear" to include affirm in every Act of the Oireachtas. The Interpretation Act, 1937, provides that in every Act of the Oireachtas the word "oath", in the case of persons for the time being allowed by law to affirm instead of swearing, includes affirmation and also includes provides that the word "swear", in the cases of persons for the time being allowed by law to affirm or declare instead of swearing, includes affirm and declare. The Bill as drafted is not therefore ambiguous or inconsistent in this regard. The Interpretation Act, 1937, will apply to the Taxes Consolidation Bill, 1997, on enactment as it applies to all other Acts of the Oireachtas. "Oath" will have to be read as including affirmation and "swear" as including affirm or declare.
There is little merit in incorporating some provisions of the Interpretation Act in the Taxes Consolidation Bill while ignoring others; for example the Interpretation Act defines writing as including printing, typewriting and so on, while land is defined as including tenements, housing and buildings. There are many references to both these terms in the Taxes Consolidation Bill and the Deputy is not proposing to amend those references. We cannot take some definitions out of the Interpretation Act and leave others there. Either we have the Interpretations Act for these matters or we define everything in every Act. The Deputy's proposal, if accepted, would introduce ambiguity into the Taxes Consolidation Bill rather than remove it. Accordingly I cannot accept the amendments.
Provided the Interpretations Act applies and defines the difference between oath and affirmation. If I could have a copy of the Minister's memo it would be of advantage to me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 108 not moved.
Sections 860 and 861 agreed to.