The Gazette 1974

back limit.

through

the

generations.

There

is

no

Mr. conveyed the impression that this was a witch-hunt by the Revenue Commissioners to get a lot of information about advice given, to require the solicitors to disclose what information they received from the clients who consulted them and to state precisely what they did. That is not required. They are required to give the names and addresses of the people who have engaged in the transfer of assets abroad for the purpose of avoiding tax. It is all very well for the Opposition to state that they share with us a desire to stop people transferring assets abroad for the purpose of avoiding tax and in the same breath stating: "We do not propose to enable the Revenue Commissioners to take the necessary steps to stop the transfer of assets abroad for the purpose of avoiding tax." I deplore the remarks to which Senator Brosnan has just now referred—the remarks of Deputy O'Malley in the Dail when he asserted that he proposes to disobey the law. It is unforgivable that a man should do it in such a way as might entice people to consult him for the purpose of engaging in the transfer of assets abroad for tax avoidance purposes. Mr. Yeats: This is a typical example of the way in which the Revenue Com- missioners over the years literally are allowed to get away with murder. The Minister appears to envisage what is almost a 1984 situation. He says in his simplistic way that if we in the Opposition were really against tax avoidance then we could give him the powers he wants. We all know there are things going on that ought not to go on. People break the law and attempt to evade taxes. It is simply because we know this, and in the interests of the civil rights, that one has to ensure that authorities do not try to take upon themselves powers which are unjustified. Power is being sought to require every solicitor to give the names to the Garda of all those who they know have been employed in certain named offences. The principle is precisely the same in each case. We are against sin, crime and wrongdoing of all kinds. That does not mean that we are bound to accept a 1984 situation in which the authorities are in a position to cross all the boundaries of confidentiality that have been set against them over the generations. I will give the Minister credit in assuming that he would not be prepared to accept a situation where solicitors were instructed by the Garda to report to them the names of all clients who have been known to them to have been involved in breaking the law. Whether one is guilty or not, one must be able to go to a solicitor and seek his advice without feeling he will rush off to the Garda to report that one has been engaged in illegal activities. As much as we object to and resent the activities of people who are attempting to evade tax, we must have regard to the requirements of confidentiality. The preservation of confidentiality between solicitor and client is more important than the immediate interests of the Revenue Com- missioners. This is not just a proposal to say that from now on transactions of this kind may be reported in effect by a solicitor having to give the names and addresses of his clients. The words used are "he must state that he is or was acting on behalf of a client". The Revenue Commissioners can go back fifteen years if they want to. They can go on a fishing expedition R. Ryan: He deliberately

They to get the name of a client who was involved in transferring funds in 1952. That is the problem with which we are faced. It is in the interests of the Revenue Commissioners and all taxpayers that as much tax as possible should be collected and that there be as little fraud as possible. Nonetheless, there are other more important interests. We feel in this instance that the Minister is violating them. Mr. Brosnan: It seems extraordinary that the Minis- ter should use this House to make an attack on the President of his own society. It is very significant that not one legal colleague of the Minister, either in this or in the other House, with one exception, got up and spoke in favour of this measure. These are people who studied the section and who knew what it was about. They all refused to come to his assistance. This was noted by many people, including the public. The only person who made a contribution in relation to this section was the Leader of the House and he made an apology. Incidentally, there is some provision in the Finance Acts whereby solicitors are required to send certain returns to the Revenue Commissioners every year. I do not know how long this provision has been in force. I do know that solicitors have repeatedly refused to make these returns. What has the Minister or anybody else done about it? The same will happen in this case. Could the Minister tell the House whether it is a fact that they have refused to make these returns. Mr. R. Ryan: I do not know. Mr. Brosnan: Does the Minister know about these returns or about the provision? Mr. R. Ryan: I know about the provision. There is a provision in law that any person who receives money for and on behalf of another may be required to disclose information about such money to the Revenue Commissioners. Mr. Brosnan: Is it a fact that the solicitors' profes- sion have refused repeatedly yeai after year to make these returns to the Commissioners? Mr. J. Fitzgerald: Even the bank managers had to do it. Mr. Brosnan: They refused to do it. Mr. R. Ryan: This is not an 1984 situation. As 1 pointed out already it is a 1939 situation. Mr. Brosnan: It is a George Orwell situation. Mr. R. Ryan: It has existed in the UK since 1939. Mr. Yeats: For thirty-five years Ministers for Finance have resisted the impulse to go on the disreputable road followed in England. It has taken thirty-five years for te Minister to come round to it. Mr. Brosnan: Does the provision exist? If it does, i s it not ignored by the profession. Mr. R. Ryan: It is in the 1967 Act. Mr. Lenihan: In practice it has been ignored. Mr. Brosnan: A return has never been made. Mr. R. Ryan: I think there is evidence to the contrary. Mr. Brosnan: I have made very positive inquiries and neither the Minister nor his predecessor could do anything about it. Mr. Lenihan: This is why all this is utter n o n s e n s e- It is unnecessary, superfluous. It will never be enforced- Question : "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried. Recommendation declared lost. Section 59 agreed to- can call upon a solicitor

244