Results 401-420 of 11,433 for speaker:Michael Kitt

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is a technical amendment. The final phrase in this paragraph, "whose adoption is recognised by virtue of the law for the time being in force in the State" can logically only refer to a child adopted outside the State. Adoptions under our Adoption Acts are automatically recognised by the State. This amendment ensures that the final phrase refers only to foreign adoptions recognised by the...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is a minor technical amendment to change the initial letter in the word "description" to lower case.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: Reference to "Subject to sections 6 and 7" is inappropriate as only section 7 qualifies this section. The wording in paragraph (g) has been rearranged for clarity.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: The words proposed to be deleted add nothing to the text. If an Act refers to another time zone then that will be clear from its context.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is a drafting change to improve clarity so as to ensure the provision is interpreted in such a way that the words "except in so far as the contrary intention appears in" relates to what is proposed to be provided in both paragraphs (a) and (b) rather than just paragraph (a).

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is a technical amendment. The use of the indefinite article rather than the definite article is more appropriate in the context of the subsection.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: The amendments in regard to this section are minor technical amendments.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is a technical amendment.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: There is a separate code dealing with electronic communications under the Electronic Commerce Act 2000.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is a technical amendment to clarify the relevant subsection.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is a technical amendment to implement the modern style of identifying definitions.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: I make the same case. This is a technical amendment.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is, again, a technical amendment.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This amendment is to prevent section 26(2)(c) being interpreted in a manner that would result in an interference with the judicial process.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is a technical amendment to improve the clarity of the provision.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This amendment means that the subsection reads better.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: Earlier I referred to section 4 which states ". . . unless the contrary intention appears . . .". This legislation and language exists to provide certainty and continuity with regard to other legislation. Section 4 specifically addresses any concerns Senator Ryan may have.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: An example would be, if the Senator committed a criminal offence——

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: ——he could still be prosecuted under the old Act.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: The contrary intention would also safeguard that situation. I referred to liability in my comments.