I suggest that we take all amendments to section 7 together.
SECTION 7.
Deputy Yates has asked that all amendments to section 7, that is amendments Nos. 55, 56, 57 and 58, be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 12, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection:
"(1) Nothing in this section shall apply to information acquired by a Special Collector regarding income or chargeable gains which he has reasonable grounds for believing arose from, or by reason of, an illegal source or activity (other than evasion of tax or the non-compliance with the provisions relating to exchange control).".
I would also like to refer to amendment No. 56. It relates to a previous definition amendment which sought to provide that the special collectors would be drawn from the ranks of the tax inspectors as distinct from other categories. I reserve my position on that for Report Stage.
Amendment No. 55 deals with the manner in which the self-declaration must be accepted in good faith by the special collector. The special collector may not challenge it and will probably not have the skills in any event to do so. The Minister said that the moneys will not come from illegal sources. How do we know? How does the Minister know? Several times on Second Stage and during the discussion on the Finance Bill, the question arose of people who have secured their ill-gotten gains from criminal activity or from the international drugs racketeering or other illegal sources who are potential beneficiaries under this amnesty. The Minister and the Taoiseach have repeatedly assured us that this will not be the case, but now that we can see the structure and detailed contents of the legislation, it is clear the Minister does not and cannot know. It is especially outrageous that this section imposes such a level of confidentiality on the special collectors. In his Second Stage speech, the Minister said:
These ensure that persons who avail of the amnesty can do so in the assurance that the special collectors who will administer the incentive amnesty will be bound by stringent requirements in that respect, over and above the rules which govern all Revenue staff to respect the privacy of taxpayers.
It is extraordinary that, in dealing with this kind of person, the Government has considered it desirable to bring in stringent requirements of confidentiality that exceed those normally applying to Revenue staff in statutory form. This is what Deputy Cox refers to as the "trappist monk" clause. It imposes a vow of silence on the special collector and makes him amenable to the law, to fines and presumably imprisonment in the event of his refusal to discharge the fine. Under this legislation the tax collectors can be locked up, while those who have deprived the State of their fair share of revenue through the years and have broken laws with impunity will be immune. The Dáil is not in the business of making law for those who break the law.
In relation to making and breaking the law, the advertisement by the Law Society in The Irish Times today is extraordinary. It must have cost almost as much as the Sinéad O’Connor poem in the same paper. One of the major concerns should be recorded although it does not deserve any serious discussion at this committee.
Under the Bill, special collectors have a duty of confidentiality imposed upon them in relation to certain information they acquire. The duty of confidentiality should be broadened to cover all matters coming within their knowledge, such as those relating to capital acquisitions tax, residential property tax and stamp duty. It should be a criminal offence for a special collector to breach confidentiality and the fine imposed should be £1,000 and not £500, as proposed by the Bill.
Is that not fantastic? Those fine gentlemen, not a tax evader among them, I am sure, propose——
I finally got their letter, by the way.
I hope the Minister consigned it to the obscurity which it deserves. To suggest that we should make criminals of the tax collectors should they mutter information to their spouse in their sleep is most fantastic and ought to be treated with derision.
Because of his unique diplomatic skills and bedside manner the Minister has escaped from altering a comma of this Bill. Even if the Minister insists that this absurd level of confidentiality, should apply for our returning tax exiles, it should not apply for those who are suspected of deriving their proceeds from criminal activity. I plead with the Minister to accept this amendment so that the general public will see that we are only legislating for those who have broken the tax laws.
Section 7, as presented to us, is bizarre. Can the Minister outline how many special collectors will be taking these declarations? Is it perhaps the 600 people who were to conduct the audit? From what section of the Revenue Commissioners will they come? Will they come from a range of offices? Will there be an internal recruitment competition? Will they be of a certain grade — inspector grade for example — or higher? Will they come from the Collector General's office or the sheriff's office?
In relation to the substance of the section, I am not aware of any breach of confidentiality by the Revenue Commissioners on any individual case in the past and anyone who has had dealings with them would have to acknowledge that their confidentiality was beyond reproach. Why then is this provision required at all? Where is the evidence of staff wishing to relay information on individuals.
This amnesty is for a finite period. It will conclude by January. Presumably staff assigned to it will be subsequently reassigned or transferred to other units of the Revenue Commissioners. Those special collectors who move to another department may recollect the names of those making these declarations. This would put them in an impossible situation because they could be accused of breaching confidentiality, and that would apply, irrespective of their office or grade.
There is also the possible problem of illegality. If one of these special collectors is watching a news bulletin and sees someone in court whom he knows has made a declaration, he may have information that would be important to the Director of Public Prosecution's office in securing a conviction. If declarations have been made by someone charged with drug trafficking or robbing a bank and if this person had declared £10,000 in the amnesty and it was now known that more than that amount had been robbed, what is in the public interest? Should the special collector be gagged or deaf and dumb and not recollect anything revealed in the secrecy of this business? There should have been a certification process including the Garda Commissioner as well as the tax authorities to avail of this amnesty, so that the Garda could be satisfied there was no illegality involved. They would have to certify accordingly. It would be in the public interest that, in certain circumstances, the special collector would be able to relay specific information to other State authorities.
If the Minister is serious about the main contention of this Bill, which is that the declarations people make on a current basis in 1992-93 will throw them into the net, there must be a clear link between the certificates of receipt and 1992-93 declarations. The tax inspector will not know that those who make 1992-93 declarations have availed of the amnesty. They may tell any cock-and-bull story. They may tell the tax inspector that they have just gone into business, their business circumstances have changed or fluctuated, they have retired etc. The inspector of taxes will not know whether somebody is an amnesty claimant. There will be no register of these people either internally or externally.
If the Minister is basing his case on the 1992-93 declaration and if he admits that most people are in the net, but not declaring their full income what is to stop someone from continuing to do that, continuing to send an invoice each month to Luxembourg for expenses, continuing to cream off exports going to Birmingham, while not making any 1992-93 declarations and availing of the amnesty? In other words, there will be no connection between the two. What is to stop a tax evader seeking to have the insurance of indemnity, by obtaining a certificate of receipt, while at the same time telling less than the full story in respect of 1992-93 declarations? That is the question. If confidentiality exists internally in the Revenue Commissioners, how can this be overcome? What will happen to these special collectors when the appeal commissioners hearings take place in the future? For example, if the audit of the 1992-93 accounts does not materialise until 1996, these special collectors may be required to give evidence as to the circumstances in which they took the declaration for the Appeal Commissioners to satisfy themselves, one way or the other, as to the validity of the declaration. This must be resolved.
I have tabled one amendment and I oppose the section. Amendment No. 57 seeks to delete section 7 (2) (d) which states:
If at any time a person, whether or not he is at that time a special collector or an officer or employee of the Revenue Commissioners knowingly and wilfully contravenes the declaration of confidentiality which he has made and subscribed he shall incur a penalty of £500.
We have reached a paradoxical situation. Public officials discharging work, which we have legislated for, would become criminals for acting in the public interest. That is objectionable. Presumably they would be brought before the courts. They would be humiliated and the defaulting taxpayer could allege a breach of the confidentiality rule. Allegations, which might be untrue, may be made against special collectors. Who will decide to prosecute special collectors, if we are to implement this provision of the Bill? The rules which apply to the staff at the Revenue Commissioners relating to confidentiality operate effectively. There is rarely a breach of confidentiality.
It is not in the public interest to ensure confidentiality where illegality is involved. A special collector may have crucial information that would tilt the balance in favour of a conviction in other criminal proceedings.
After the Second Stage debate, I attempted to draft amendments to this Bill. I find this amnesty culture, which spreads throughout this legislation and which rolls from one class of amnesty to another, unprincipled and offensive. This Bill and, in particular, the provisions contained in section 7, relating to the treatment of special collectors, is odious and offensive. Therefore, I could not write an amendment, except to delete this provision.
I will deal with this issue at some length because it is the most offensive piece of legislation relating to the public service. I have expressed a number of views in relation to public pay because it is an issue which involves economic policy. Throughout my career I worked in the public sector and, in a sense I still do because I continue drawing my pay from the public sector. Those in the public service, in terms of probity and standards, are impeccable. The special collectors will be from a service with impeccable standards and people with outstanding records. I do not understand why such an odious and offensive provision relating to such people should be included in this legislation.
I salute the fact that Deputy Rabbitte has tabled an amendment to this section rather than just saying "let us get rid of it". I sympathise with Deputy Rabbitte, when he seeks a double assurance that illegal funds will not be laundered through this amnesty. However, from what I have heard the Minister say in the past two days, the Deputy's concern amounts to nothing in the Minister's eyes. An individual will make a declaration in the form prescribed and approved by the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners. It will then be presented to a special collector who will be unable to ask for details as to where the money came from. There is no system of corroboration. No one, even the chief special collector, is entitled to ask a person availing of the amnesty, even in confidence, whether the money in respect of which that person is availing of the amnesty was illegally obtained. That is a fair point but in the logic of this corrupt legislation we can do nothing about it. No evidence is required as to where the person availing of the amnesty got the money and no one to whom the declaration is shown is entitled to ask that person a question about it. They are allowed to check whether the name and address is right because that is provided for in the law. They are allowed to check whether the other two or three pieces of information provided for in the law are right and then they are required by law to issue that person with a certificate of immunity.
I wish to hear the Minister's views on this, and I would like to be assured that the Minister could accept in some form the amendment proposed by Deputy Rabbitte. The role of the special collector and the £500 fine is, as Deputy Rabbitte described it earlier, a thread running through the garment and it is the same garment all the time and we go around in the same circle. This matter is critically important to the debate we finished before the last division. If the Minister is going to such lengths in law to reassure the cheats that the system of collection being put in place will provide such an extraordinary degree of confidentiality that he is prepared to bring in fines on his own servants for doing their job, then the Minister need not say that the confidentiality is not absolute. No Minister who wants to have conditional confidentiality would then fine his own public servants for doing the job that he gave them in law. This proves the contention that the confidentiality is designed to be absolute.
I raised a point on the Second Stage debate that these Trappist Monks, the special collectors are, presumably people with a career within the public service. Are they now to go to some kind of Gulag archipelago to see out their days or are they be to shifted out of Revenue? Where are they to go with these secrets about all the dodgers and cheats? When the Minister comes to renegotiate Programme for Economic and Social Progress II will his incentive clause of £500 to keep your trap shut be added in as the new amnesia incentive?
I agree with Deputy Rabbitte's comment on the view of the Incorporated Law Society. I studied the submission of the Incorporated Law Society and I find it excellent in a number of respects. However, in the matter of fining public servants for doing their job and then arguing that the Minister has not gone far enough, it has lost the run of itself.
Subsection 2 (d) is an offence to every individual concerned. It is a slur on the reputation of the public service and it makes a nonsense of the fact that these people will be specially hand picked to do the job. These Trappists in addition to having the amnesia incentive of being fined if they talk to anyone, must swear the solemn declaration — the three monkeys oath in the Schedule to this Act.
I will not disclose, or cause to be disclosed, to a person who is not a special collector. . . any information which I acquire, or I have access to, in the course of discharging special collection functions. . .
The three monkeys oath is "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil."
The special collectors may talk to each other. We are inventing in the law a club more exclusive than the K club. I do not know how many special collectors we will have but by law in Ireland they can only talk to each other in regard to these matters for the rest of their earthly days. Should they talk to anyone else they will be hounded by their Minister, by the State or by the offended party who believes that confidentiality has been breached and they will then have their amnesia incentive to look forward to.
I agree with Deputy Rabbitte and say to anyone selected as a special collector that if a fine landed on his or her desk for breach of confidentiality I hope his or her colleagues in the public service would stand by that person, who would refuse to pay the fine and let the Government then decide what the consequences should be. I cannot understand how public persons in the public interest following public law in dealing with people who flouted the law should decide that cheats, dodgers and liars should get a special incentive to encourage them to comply with a system which they have cheated, and that the enforcers of the law should find themselves liable to be fined. That is why, in this unprincipled Bill, I find this part the most offensive of all.
Subsection 2 (d) is offensive to such a degree that I did not bother trying to redefine any niceties. It is disgraceful that any Minister or Cabinet should stand over this kind of nonsense. I appeal to the Minister, if he insists on bringing in this legislation, to desist from this profound insult to the probity of the Civil Service and of individuals they are selecting. If the Minister, after all we have discussed, wants to tell me that the confidentiality he is prepared to extend to these people is not absolute when he is prepared to nail his own public servants to the cross, he must take us to be absolute idiots.
I wish to answer a number of points. I will deal with Deputy Rabbitte's point about unlawful money statements at the outset. Section 2 (2) (b) (vii) refers to tax in respect of income or chargeable gains which arose from or by reason of an illegal source of activity other than the evasion of tax or the non-compliance with the provisions relative to exchange contros, and section 2 (3) (a) (iv) provides that an individual availing of the amnesty shall give a written statement which declares that neither declared amounts nor any part of these amounts arose from or by reason of an unlawful source of activity other than the evasion of tax and the non-compliance with the provisions related to exchange control.
Section 19 of the 1983 Act makes income derived from unlawful sources taxable. Therefore money from unlawful sources is already within the tax code for the past ten years. We are dealing here with the tax code, not the criminal code. If any money that comes in from a criminal is shown to have been made illegally, after investigation by the fraud squad or the gardaí the Revenue would investigate in co-operation and collaboration with the gardaí. If that person had used the amnesty they would have no immunity under the Act, because it is illegal to use the amnesty for money unlawfully made, other than by tax evasion. I wish to take up Deputy Cox's and Deputy Yates's point about section 7. Deputy Cox did not put down an amendment. What is the amnesty trying to do? It is giving taxpayers an opportunity to wipe the slate clean in respect of their tax liabilities and to make a fresh start as compliant taxpayers.
I am aware that there may be a fear among those who avail of the amnesty that they would be marked out for special attention. That is why they did not avail of the 1974, 1986 and 1988 amnesties. These fears, however misguided, cannot be allowed to ruin a tax amnesty.
When the Government decides to give an amnesty it clearly follows that one must set comprehensive provisions of confidentiality. That allows one to maximise the number of non-compliant taxpayers who will, once and for all, come into the net, close off loopholes and then issue — as this Bill does later on — due medicine. That is the only way one can seriously deal with a tax amnesty. If there is no confidentiality it will not work.
Any transaction with the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the incentive amnesty of 15 per cent must be dealt with from start to finish by a special staff bound to secrecy. It has not yet been decided how many special collectors there will be but I presume there will be four or five in the initial stages. These special collectors will not pass on information relating to individuals availing of the amnesty. They are not investigators. They are just receiving money confidentially from individual non-compliant taxpayers. Subsequently, such individuals may be required to produce a tax certificate for the information necessary for audit, examination or whatever.
Effectively, there is only one exception to the absolute secrecy of an individual's dealings with the special collectors' office. The exception cases because while Revenue staff, other than special collectors, do not know that an individual has availed of the amnesty, an individual may produce an amnesty certificate or evidence to the effect that he or she has availed of the amnesty.
The essential message of section 7 is that taxpayers availing of the amnesty to put their tax affairs in order can do so with the assurance of confidentiality. If we did not have section 7 there would be no point in our debating any part of the Bill. The evidence for this is that people did not avail of the 1988 and earlier amnesties because this assurance of confidentality was not there.
The amnesty, like it or not, is a pragmatic measure and it is consistent with that pragmatism to eliminate any deterrents to the maximum take-up of the amnesty by non-compliant taxpayers. Of course, not only must taxpayers put their tax affairs in order by means of a confidential declaration to the officer, but they must also keep their tax affairs in order thereafter.
I would not be here this morning bringing in this legislation if I did not believe that we were bringing in non-compliant taxpayers, who have broken the law successfully. In spite of the efforts of successive Governments over many decades to enact legislation and empower staff, these people are not in the system. Hopefully, this Bill will bring a proportion of these people within the compliant taxpayers net. As Deputy Yates correctly said, this will apply for only a few months. People must fulfil their obligations, clean the slate and bring matters up to date.
I believe that people advised to use this amnesty will bring their affairs into order. Regrettably there will be others who will not use this or any amnesty. They will continue to operate outside the system. We are targeting people who have expressed, over a long period, their desire — if there was an attraction or protection to do so — to pay a proportion of their ill-gotten gains from the past as non-compliant taxpayers. They wish to go straight and stay straight in the system thereafter, and run the risk of audits and investigations. That is what section 7 is endeavouring to do.
It is the Government's clear belief that without this confidential measure there is no point in pursuing a tax amnesty. We might as well continue to speak about non-compliant taxpayers while knowing that in reality there is massive evasion and avoidance which we are doing nothing about it and that we are unlikely to catch a substantial amount of them, regardless of what amendments we intriduce in Finance Bills year after year. The reality is that there is a considerable amount of support and lobbying for non-compliant people.
This way the Department of Finance, the Revenue Commissioners and Governments of the future are giving one clear chance — 1988 was not a clear chance and netted only 400 individuals out of 170,000 applications. Maybe it is just a dream to believe that one would ever achieve the standards of compliance I would like. They have failed to do it in most other countries. Perhaps the only exception to that is the United States.
Regarding the provision of a penalty of £500 for staff, I wish to say to Deputy Rabbitte that section 7 (2) (d) does not create a criminal offence. The penalty is a civil penalty collected like a debt if incurred. None of the usual criminal language is used in the subsection. It does not create an offence. It does not provide for trial either summarily or an indictment. It does not require a conviction.
What happens if one did not pay up?
I presume one can be disciplined and sued for a debt.
A direct debit.
It is a debt. It could be collected at £1 a week I suppose. I mighty negotiate that in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
(Interruptions.)
Please, I am only half way through.
We agreed at the start that we would take section 9 at 12.10 p.m. However I will allow the Minister to finish.
We did not agree at that stage that the Opposition would speak for 35 minutes. There must be some justice somewhere.
It is not in this Bill.
I am not impressed by those here to back the Minister. Even Deputy Ferris has abandoned him at this stage.
He is creating jobs in Clonmel. Give him a break.
In providing a penalty of £500 for a deliberate breach of confidentiality, it is not intended to question the integrity of Revenue officers or employees who would be nominated as special collectors — that is the last thing I would bring into law. The Government is setting out to provide a real assurance of confidentiality. I am glad my colleagues feel equally about the level of fines because confidentiality is not the only matter people are concerned about. A real assurance of confidentiality is essential. Without the signal that it is confidential, you are wasting your time. Any declaration of confidentiality which could be knowingly and wilfully breached without a penalty would lack any credibility, in particular for those individuals who fear they will mark themselves down for special attention.
The penalty of £500 is not only intended to confirm the seriousness and permanently binding nature of the declaration of confidentiality for those who make it, it is also intended to protect collectors from being pressed for information and data from sources which are secret. The penalty will be tangible evidence of the prohibition which will continue to bind those who make the declaration after they cease to be special collectors or, indeed, after they cease to be Revenue employees. The penalty is not only intended to convince individuals availing of the amnesty of the seriousness of the declaration of confidentiality but, equally, it is intended to convince those who put pressure on special collectors or former special collectors of the seriousness of the declaration. Otherwise, there would be investigations to try to find out what was paid and by whom.
There is an unusual degree of public interest in these cases and, to be honest, that is why such people have tried to stay out of the tax regime over the years. I have no interest in these people other than to see them as compliant taxpayers, but the reason they stayed out of the tax net is that they believed their coming in would be public knowledge. The declaration of confidentiality, on the contrary, is intended to assist in rejecting any unwelcome pressures and for that reason I believe it is desirable.
I assure Deputy Rabbitte that the inspector, male or female, who is at home in bed with somebody and talks in his sleep will not get into trouble because he would not be divulging information knowingly or wilfully.
On a point of order, I suggest we need to spend more time on this matter. We have provided from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. for discussion of sections 10, 11 and 12 although there are no amendments to sections 10 or 12. I suggest we allow discussion of sections 7, 8 and 9 continue until 1 p.m. rather than spend an hour and a half discussing section 11, as section 10 is not controversial and section 12 is very short. That would allow us a further 15 minutes for this section.
My only concern is that my colleagues will return at 12.30 p.m.
I am happy to allow any votes be taken at the end.
To have the vote at 2 p.m.?
Yes, at 2 p.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I agree with many of the Minister's remarks yesterday and today and on television last night, which unequivocally convey his distaste for the people who habitually break the law by not paying their dues to the State. He has gone out of his way to say that he is not defending them or condoning their activities, he is merely seeking to bring them into the compliant tax community. Yet, his answers to points raised by the Opposition are predicated on the honesty of these offenders. I cannot understand that.
I noted the Minister's response to the possibility of illegally acquired money being brought in by the amnesty. He says that cannot happen, because it is illegal to use the amnesty for that purpose. It is illegal not to comply with the tax laws, yet, those people have done that with impunity and it has not cost them a second thought. If the self declaration is left open-ended and the State is obliged to take it at face-value, the Minister cannot respond that it would be illegal to use the amnesty for illegal purposes. That would not deter the people we are talking about for one minute. They will put their energies into getting consistent advise to ensure they cannot be caught out. I continue to argue that partial disclosure is very worthwhile, because of the immunity that it confers on one through the badge of dishonour we have been talking about, i.e., the black certificate.
The Minister says that there is massive evasion and avoidance of taxation. I have acknowledged that the Minister has done more in a couple of Finance Bills — especiallly last year's — to shut down some evasion possibilities than several previous Ministers. The collection procedures and assessment capacity of the Revenue Commissioners are improving all the time. They are catching up with tax evaders. We have already agreed that most of those who will gain from the general amnesty are already on the record. They are in the net; their records are in the system.
We know the tax audit system is working well because the pips are squeaking in places around the country. Additional staff have seen released from customs duties as a result of the Single Market. I do not know the precise internal managerial arrangements that are being made to deploy staff — we discussed this at some length during the debate on the Finance Bill — but provided we put adequately trained staff into this area, they pay for themselves a thousand times over and it is a very good investment. Of course, the Minister is similarly truthful and frank in explaining why we will not do that.
I expressed my regrets yesterday that the media paid little attention to this debate and to analysing the Bill. Other politicians feel that it is not politic to criticise the media, although they have not been slow to criticise the operations of this House for a very long time.
The Dáil has been reformed but the media have not reformed themselves to cope with it. If they did focus on this it would provide an interesting lesson. The Minister is saying the political culture in this country would not tolerate our unleashing more tax inspectors on non-compliant taxpayers because we have seen the reaction. Therefore people have been pursuaded to give those offenders one last chance to bring their affairs into order.
The political will is not there but the Minister asks which party has it. There were brief and fleeting moments when I thought I might exchange positions with the Minister last December. I can tell him that I would have had the will. The Government might not have——
The reason I said that was to invite the support which I hope to get from some members of this Committee for sections 10, 11, 12 and 13. Most of the letters I receive against the amnesty are about the powers. People are looking at the other side of this amnesty and seeing the powers return to the 1992 position. Amazingly it is from that angle people have analysed the Bill, in case I might do something——
The Minister should not anticipate that debate.
I am just inviting support.
This disgraceful piece of legislation will not be supported by the Opposition.
I am inviting support. That is not just for the amnesty, that is for the future.
Precisely, and that is why we must look at it.
We know Deputy Rabbitte wants to throw away the key if he can get it.
It is an attempt to see the real support to stop non-compliance.
The Minister is full of bravado in introducing a most disgraceful, unprincipled piece of legislation which gives no equality before the law.
There is no bravado in factual comments.
We talked about pragmatism earlier. There is not a strain of principle underlying this.
The Minister's intervention was quite outrageous.
Could we allow the Minister or Deputy Rabbitte continue?
The Minister Manqué.
Deputy Cox could not agree with Deputy Rabbitte either, so he should be careful.
Deputy Cox was also hopeful he would have my position last December.
Deputy Cox would not have such modest ambitions.
I do not see exactly where Deputy Cox's role lies.
I wish Deputy Cox well, Chairman.
The confessional environment being ushered in by this Bill is clearly affecting us all. It is interesting the Minister referred to the situation in the United States, which is the home of thriving, rampant capitalism and full-blooded market forces. Yet if US tax officials were dealing with people like this they would attack them like a swarm of bees and quarantine the offenders. They would shoot first and ask questions afterwards.
I accept the Minister's statement that the political culture in this country changes slowly. As a result other people have borne the brunt of running the State services for too long. This section only encourages that culture and the belief that we will repeat the amnesty when required. It is always easy to make those compelling arguments about needing the money.
It is interesting that, as Deputy Yates has remarked, the Minister has been virtually deserted today. All those people Seán Lemass referred to as "a fine bunch of harmless men" in the Labour Party seem to have gone home or somewhere else. Even the captain's old dog, Deputy Ferris has reneged on the Minister.
Excuse me, Deputy Rabbitte, I think that language should not be used in the absence of Deputy Ferris to defend himself.
I did not mean any pejorative connotation in describing my friend, Deputy Ferris. I was merely reflecting on his loyalty. Come what may he is loyal to whomever he is supporting at the time. I accept that.
I do not believe that the Minister can rely on those who may declare under the amnesty to do so honestly. Therefore other investigations should be possible. I agree with Deputy Cox that ideally this section ought not be in the Bill. If it is to be there I am seeking to amend it.
This is one of the last sections which deals with this amnesty. We can summarise the position of the Minister by saying if one gets this black certificate one will not have to produce accounts or give annual breakdowns and there is no special requirement for 1991/92. The Government will take one's word that this is a full and total declaration. We have debated that point.
What we are now discussing under section 7 is who will know of the existence of the certificate. Only these four or five special collectors will know. Is that reasonable? The question is not whether this certificate is valid, rather who knows someone made such a declaration and availed of the amnesty.
Interpol may inquire about a Mafia organisation from Sicily that may have laundered large sums of money in Ireland and want to know did they use this tax amnesty. By not accepting amendment No. 55 and refusing to alter the section, the Minster is saying Interpol is not entitled to know of the existence of this certificate.
Let us take another case of a gentleman I have never met but who is infamous. I refer to "the General". Does the Minister want the General to avail of this black certificate and let nobody know this, not even the Garda who are trying to catch him? Is this justifiable?
Should the second category of people know about it? It is acknowledged under the audit system the random chance was about 2 per cent and is heading for 5 per cent. In other words, leaving aside geographic location, on a national basis the chance of being audited is between 2 and 5 per cent in a given year. Is it unreasonable that those in the audit section would not know who has obtained a certificate? If the Minister is so sure that people who will seek the amnesty will tell the truth and will make a full declaration, why not make those certificates available to the Revenue Commissioners within the sphere of confidentiality?
This is the basic question, leaving aside that people may be dishonest in the facts given to obtain the certificate. It is not unreasonable if the 1992-93 P12 form is the basis for checking people's current return of income. However those going through the 1992-93 returns will not know if a person is an amnesty applicant or not. No hoof prints will be left in the sand.
The certificates should be available to other authorities such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners and certainly the audit team. That is entirely reasonable even if one supports the Minister's thesis that what is declared is truthful. In areas of illegality and criminal activity I cannot see how the Minister can justify giving a secrecy deal which in effect gives such actions watertight immunity as well as that provided in section 2.
We agreed we would finish sections 7, 8 and 9 at 12.30 p.m. Since then Deputy Yates has asked it be extended to 1 p.m. In the meantime I will have to take section 7 as it stands in order to maintain the time table. The Committee cannot drift on without finishing. The order of the House states we have to finish section 12 by today. If everybody is happy with the debate on section 7 we will now move on to sections 8 and 9.
I would be happy to agree to that. The Minister suggested — and I know it was off the cuff — that someone who was fined could perhaps pay the fine at the rate of £1 a week. It was a good, pragmatic response in light of the fact that he does not want to hound people. I ask him to take a principled view and withdraw that provision before Report Stage. This Government should trust its public servants who are hand picked to do the job the law says they should do.
I will consider the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 56 to 58, inclusive not moved.
Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill", put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.