Tom Parlon (Laois-Offaly, Progressive Democrats)

I am hardly needed at this stage. This amendment proposes to insert "affirmation" after "oath" in subparagraph (i) of subsection (3)(a) of section 52. Subsection (3)(a) provides inter alia that the judge in the taking of evidence has various powers, including the power to take evidence on oath. Amendment No. 57 proposes to extend the power to take evidence on oath or affirmation. I am advised that the Schedule to the Interpretation Act 2005 covers the matter and defines the word "oath" to allow a person to affirm instead of swearing an oath. Therefore, the word "oath" in legislation encompasses an affirmation. Accordingly, the proposed amendment is unnecessary.

See this speech in context