The Gazette 1975

these people, it is possible to proceed after them. If they withhold information, at least they are identifiable and accountable to the law. The opportunity of conceal- ment is frustrated by the section, which was the inten- tion of the Legislature. It was debated on Second Stage. I stayed up all night to afford the Opposition an oppor- tunity to make whatever comments they wished to make. Mr. Colley: That was because the Minister brought in the Bill too late. Mr. Ryan: It was debated at length in the other House and the matter was also aired in the newspapers. It has been fully debated last year and this year and, no doubt, we are all the wiser for having heard each other's views. Mr. B. Desmond: I wish to support the Minister. I would have thought that by now the Fianna Fail Party would have seen how flimsy are the very exclusive and special pleadings they have been making here. I have to declare my income to the Revenue Com- missioners. Three-quarters of a million workers have to declare their incomes, wages and salaries to the Revenue Commissioners. We know the all-pervasive powers of the Revenue Commissioners to obtain such information from employers. It strikes a rather hollow note to hear the Fianna Fail Party claiming virtually absolute privi- lege for the special relationship between the client and solicitor. Mr. Colley: No, in relation to the State in general. It has existed for centuries. It is for the protection of the citizens. Is he for or against that? Mr. B. Desmond: I was listening in my room. I read last year's debates. I have read what I would regard in relation to tax avoidance as the rather spurious argu- ments put forward by Deputy O'Malley last year and this year. Mr. Colley: Every taxpayer is obliged to declare their income. Mr. B. Desmond: Except those who get special advice from special people and special solicitors. The people who are handling such transactions, especially property transactions, could now be caught if the Revenue Commissioners wished to exercise their powers. ' I have no doubt that in future some will be caught. Not so long ago Deputy O'Malley said he would never disclose any client's transaction to the Revenue Com- missioners. I suggest that Deputy Colley would not be very wise in pressing this too publicly because, the more the public become aware of the exigency of this special relationship, particularly in relation to tax avoidance, the more acutely they will become aware of the double standards being applied by Fianna Fail. The Minister is perfectly right in having this in the Bill. Major de Valera: The point is that the use of the words "any person" is not sufficient to capture it and the Minister is assuming that it is. I say that if the matter were tested that would not be broad enough. The Minister probably realised that possibility and solved this problem by assuming the general phrase removes the privilege and this writes back in three- quarters or most of the privilege and puts in a saver. That is really what happened and that is really what the Minister is basing his case on. As I say, this may

whatever capacity . ..". His point was why was that phrase not used in this section if it is one that covers everybody, including solicitors. Mr. R. Ryan: It says : "any person" and then sub- section (3) goes on to say : A solicitor shall not be deemed for the purposes of . paragraph (c) thereof to have taken part in a trans- action by reason only that he has given professional advice to a client in connection with that transaction. It is a safeguard. I do not think anybody can suggest that: "a person acting in any capacity" excludes solici- tors. Major de Valera: The Court might. Mr. R. Ryan: It would be tantamount to saying that solicitors are not persons. Mr. Colley: It seems to me that there is a major distinction between the 1967 Act and this provision in that the 1967 Act is dealing with a case where a person is in receipt of money. That does not arise at all in the section we are dealing with. It seems to me that that constitutes quite a difference in the approach to the matter. If the Minister is contending that this sub- section which refers to solicitors was introduced in ease of solicitors, he is implying in that that, if that sub- section had not been brought in, a client's privilege in consulting a solicitor would have been totally taken away, and in his giving advice. Mr. R. Ryan: Not advice, because subsection (3) deliberately excludes the giving of professional advice. Mr. Colley: I am afraid that is not correct, as I understand it. It provides that a solicitor shall not be deemed for the purposes of paragraph (c) of sub- section (2) thereof to have taken part in a transaction by reason only that he has given professional advice. That is the exclusion in relation to professional advice. He is not deemed to have taken part in the transaction. Subsection (3), which is the one we are concerned with here, includes him if he has given advice. Is the Minister saying that if subsection (3) were not there the privilege of a solicitor and client relationship would have disappeared completely in so far as it related to any transactions, or advice in relation to transactions, which could have been affected by sec- tions 57, 58 and 60? Mr. R. Ryan: No. Section 59 refers to the purpose and the nature of the notice and the particulars which must be furnished in reply—that and no more. Then there is a further brake as to the information which the solicitor may be required to give. Mr. Colley: The Minister was representing that sub- section as being in ease of the solicitor and client rela- tionship. Does it not follow from that, that if it were not there there would not be any easement of the solicitor and client relationship? In view of all the Minister has been telling us about the obligation and necessity to stamp out this kind of activity, how does he justify preserving the solicitor and client relation- ship to the extent that he says he has done so under subsection (3) ? Mr. R. Ryan: Because the information which must be furnished is sufficient to identify the persons engaged in avoidance practices. Then the Revenue Commis- sioners proceed to contact the people who are so engaged. Once information is given which identifies

. 2 6 0