Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

As Senator Terry pointed out, the Law Reform Commission recommended there should generally be greater use of the active instead of the passive voice. It is more appropriate on occasion to use the passive voice to emphasise an act rather than its agent. The present drafting style makes too much use of the passive voice, often obscuring the central message of a section. However, having examined this issue, the amendment does not raise the issue of the active and the passive voice. I regret Senator Norris is not present to elucidate on this matter. The active, autonomous voice relates to the detachment of a person from a particular subject whereas the active voice requires an agent or subject for the verb.

The subsection under consideration states, "This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister may, by order, appoint", which uses the future tense while the Senator proposes the use of the present tense. She is correct that a divergent practice has emerged in this area. If the amendment was accepted, the legislation would state, "The Act comes into operation on such day as the Minister may, by order, appoint." The view of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is that would be a change of style rather than substance. It does not alter the meaning of the provision. However, the Department raised the issue with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and pointed out the measures to which the Senator referred where the alternative construction was used. We have requested that the office should seek to ensure a consistent approach on this matter in future Bills.

A number of Bills include the term "comes". For example, the Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill 2000 was amended in this regard in the Dáil. However, this does not change the fact there is absolutely no change in the meaning of the provisions. "Shall come" is unambiguous and clear and the commencement in this instance is done by the Minister on a future date. There is a greater stylistic precision in using the future tense to refer to a future event, namely, the making of a ministerial order to bring the Act into operation than the present tense, which introduces an element ambiguity in that it makes the enactment a continuous process. It is a fine point but we have asked the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure a consistent approach in this regard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."