The Gazette 1975

used and challenged unsuccessfully across the water. Deputy de Valera suggested that section 176 of the 1967 Act was unimpeachable because it did not men- tion solicitors whereas the 1974 Act did mention solici- tors. The 1974 Act mentions solicitors only to restrict the information which can be obtained from solicitors. There is no restriction in the 1967 Act but there is a specific limitation on the information which can be obtained in the 1974 Act. It was not possible in the 1974 Act to spell out the several different types of situations which can be de- veloped to engage in tax avoidance by transferring assets abroad so the information which the Revenue Commissioners are authorised to get is such as they think necessary for the purpose of determining whether or not funds have been sent abroad with a view to avoiding liability to tax. It then puts a limit on the information which a solicitor may be required to give. The situation has now been fully ventilated. I can express considerable sympathy and understanding with the various views that have been expressed here today. If any person feels aggrieved because of the use of the section if and when it is applied he will have his remedy. I personally would not feel any sense of disap- pointment if the Courts took a view different from that taken by the Legislature as to the appropriateness and constitutionality of this section. I accept that they are there as defenders of the liberty of the people. I am unable to accept the amendment. Mr. Colley: The point Deputy de Valera was making was that the 1967 Act phrase is : "Every person who in

the Legislature in its anxiety to support the Executive would be compelled by the Supreme Court to undo it because of inroads on fundamental himan rights. Any of us who are lawyers, and the Minister himself, will know that the matter of privilege between solicitor and client is not by any means a trivial thing. Ruairi Brugha: We contend that section 59 requires persons engaged in a professional capacity in advising clients to reveal information concerning clients and thereby to break confidentiality. That is part of the structure of the relationship between solicitors, accoun- tants and their clients. The Revenue Commissioners have the power to direct any persons engaged in evasion of tax, whether he be a representative of a company or an indivi- dual, to provide whatever information the Commis- sioners require. We contend that a totally different issue is involved here and that is that a person em- ployed in a professional capacity would be required to disclose information about his clients. That seems to be a fundamental issue. The Minister has not yet satisfied me that this section does not require that of persons engaged in a professional capacity. If it does not require it then there is nothing wrong with the amend- ment. If it does require it, that should be disclosed. Mr. R. Ryan: This section has only been enacted since last year. I understand that a number of facts have come to light which would warrant the use of this section but it has not yet been used. It took some time also to put into effect section 176 of the 1967 Act. We have, of course, ample experience of how it has been

Insurance problem /olver/

Coyle Hamilton, through specialised com- panies, provides the complete range of insurance services from a single source. We specialise in industrial and commer- cial insurance; offer risk management and valuation services. Life and Pensions; International Insurance; Bloodstock; Re- insurance; Regional services and tailor- made services for the smaller business- man — all are provided. With Coyle Hamilton you get the best of both worlds — personal service by expert executives, backed by the resources of a big professional organisation.

M COYLE HAMILTON

Coyle Hamilton Hamilton Phillips Group, Incorporated Insurance Brokers, Phoenix House, Sth. Leinster St., Dublin 2. Telephone 687211.

. 2 5 9