As I pointed out before progress was reported, the very fact that the discussion was of the nature into which it developed was in itself a plea for consistency and simplicity in regard to these three Bills. We are defining the very same words and phrases in these Bills, which follow the one White Paper and which are related to capital and the taxation of capital. They are going through the House at the same time and I do not think it is too much to ask why there are differences and to suggest that in the interests of simplicity the matter should be reexamined.
I should like to make a point now on subsection (3) which is essentially the same point I made on the preceding two subsections. First of all, the word "indicated" is used. It is used in all three Bills to relate them to other enactments but in this Wealth Tax Bill it is in a somewhat different form from the other two measures. In the Capital Gains Tax Bill the reference is section 2 (6): "References in this Act to any enactment shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment.". It is precisely the same in the Capital Acquisitions Tax Bill but in this Bill it is: "A reference to any other enactment shall, except so far as the context otherwise requires, be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by or under any other enactment, including this Act". There is a difference of meaning. Is there any particular reason why this variation should be there? I have been quoting subsection (3) paragraph (c). There is a similar but yet somewhat different provision in the other two Bills dealing with the same matter. This is confusing.
What is the import of the word "indicated"? It occurs in the interpretation section of the Capital Gains Tax Bill, subsection (7), and in the Capital Acquisitions Bill, section 2 (6) and, in this Bill, it occurs in section 1 (3), paragraphs (a) and (b). What is the meaning of "indicated" here? Deputy Esmonde might be able to help me here. Is it to be taken in the general meaning or is it now to be taken in the technical term? I have not attempted to follow up the word "property" and some of the other words today. I do not want to pursue the purely legalistic line. It states here that a reference to a section is to a section of this Act unless it is indicated that a reference to some other enactment is intended. That is the phrase at (a). What precisely is the force and effect of the word "indicated" in a statute? That should be looked at in relation to this Bill and also as far as the other two Bills are concerned. I do not know if this is simply a general word to be taken in its general meaning or if it has been used in the statutes before and has become a technical term or has even been interpreted as such.