Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her reply and Senator Ward for his very helpful analysis. I have much sympathy with that analysis. There is a great deal to be said for efficiencies here. I still think, and it probably has to be said, that the commentary and reaction of the Law Society to this was unhelpful. To some degree, it raises certain issues that may not actually arise at all, depending on what the relevant committee produces in terms of options. There is a big difference between getting rid of the requirement of an oath or affirmation arising out of some document of secularism or some misconceived definition and inaccurate grasping at pluralism and making issues more efficient. That said, we will have to see what the relevant committee produces by way of an option. I still think there is a validity to my comparison with the Passport Office and the supplementary electoral register. I thank Senator Ward for that clarification also. While he is correct to say that what is being proven by presenting oneself before an officer of the Garda Síochána goes to the issue of the identity of the person, in the end it all does come down to veracity. If someone signs up to who he is and he is not telling the truth, that is the issue. I would submit that it is veracity as to identity.

The more important point here is the question of whether it is antiquated to require a person to appear before a third party when preparing information that is to go before a court, or whether it is a necessary fail-safe. Whether, in appearing before that third party, one makes a religious oath, secular affirmation or statement of veracity that carries criminal sanctions if it is a false statement, need not detain us for the purpose of considering whether there ought to be the requirement to appear before a third party when preparing documentation before the court. I remain to be convinced that it would be a good idea. The legislation does not specifically indicate what the desired outcome is to be. I am not convinced that it is a good idea not to require something of people when preparing documentation that goes before a court and that involves evidence and claimed statement of fact. It seems to me that while it is good to facilitate efficiency by providing for the making of electronic statements, requiring some form of presentation to a third party be it an oath or statement of truth does not necessarily clog up the system or cause unnecessary delay.