I am obliged to bring to the notice of the committee that I will be putting down Report Stage amendments to this section.
SECTION 116.
Question proposed: "That section 116 stand part of the Bill."
Is this the debate we had last year, led by my party colleague, Deputy Dermot Ahern, in connection with clearance certificates for solicitors?
Yes, we will come to it on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 117 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 114, before section 118, but in Chapter I of Part VI, to insert the following new section:
"118. (1) In this section—
‘assets' includes any cash, stocks, bonds, securities or any type of property whatsoever;
‘the court' means the district court.
(2) The Revenue Commissioners shall be obliged to release any information in their possession concerning any assets or formally in the possession or under the control of any individual or a company if ordered by the Court to do so.
(3) An application for an order under this section shall be made by a Garda Officer not below the rank of Inspector. Before making such an order the court must be satisfied that the information requested is necessary to assist the Gardaí in an investigation in to the commission of an indictable offence.".
This amendment was put forward last year by myself and Deputy O'Dea, but he is not a Member of this committee so his name does not appear on it. It was ruled out of order last year but we are able to debate it this year and Deputy O'Dea would be here to speak on it if he were available.
I raised, by way of parliamentary question, the level of co-operation between the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda and the passing of information from one to the other as it affects the criminal classes. The Minister and I agree, as would everyone in the House, that the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda are scandalised by the obvious wealth of a number of people who are known by everyone to be involved in large-scale crime. I know a couple of individuals who have assets far greater than anyone sitting around this table, whom the Garda and everyone else know are major crime figures. This is not just a Dublin problem; it is known all over the country. It is most frustrating for the Garda to do their best to catch these godfathers of crime while these people drive large cars, live in huge houses and own vast assets greater than the combined wealth of a division of gardaí.
I know the Minister has some sympathy with my suggestion that we proceed with the "Al Capone" method of catching these criminals. If an individual who submits his tax returns comes to the notice of the Revenue Commissioners as acquiring an asset which is far outside what his income would allow, he would be investigated thoroughly. These are known as back duty cases, which might go on for some years. The person will be investigated to the "n"th, degree, and rightly so. He will be pursued at every level, statements and documents will be examined for a period of years and a large tax settlement will usually be made at the end. If one is not a compliant taxpayer, if one is not in the tax code at all, this will not happen. Such people are not being pursued to the extent of their assets by the Revenue Commissioners.
As a former Minister for Social Welfare, I know the fear of civil servants about what happened to a person who worked in that Department. Thousands of people in the Department have the power to be a deciding officer, but this person was unlucky enough to be the officer who signed the form to cut off assistance to a well known criminal in this city. It is well known what happened to him — he was kidnapped in the middle of the night, shot and left beside a railway track. They knew where his house was and what his family circumstances were in detail.
As a person with a family I readily appreciate that no one wants to put himself in that position. However, I have advocated both inside and outside the Government that a small, elite team could be put together between the Revenue Commissioners, the Garda and Customs and Excise and I know the type of person I would pick. Undoubtedly, if there was co-operation and transfer of resources between those bodies, many of these criminals could have their money taken from them.
If any Deputy acquired tomorrow a property worth £1 million and could not explain it to the Revenue Commissioners, there would be a back duty investigations. Not only would the Revenue get the money from him, his name would be published in the papers and he would probably be thrown out of the Dáil as he would be bankrupt. I know criminals with at least £1 million in property but nothing is being done to them. There is a marked reluctance on the Revenue side — I have made fair comment as to why it exists and I readily recognise it. However, we will have to deal with the matter and my amendment is a reflection of the frustration I and every Member of the House feel about this. It is one approach and I ask the Minister to consider it.
I agree with virtually everything Deputy McCreevy said. The official advice to me is that this amendment is not necessary as it is already contained in section 63 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. However, it may be necessary to adopt a belt and braces approach, so it might be no harm to include it in this year's Finance Bill also, in a manner which we will have to consider on Report Stage.
Like the Chairman, I represent a constituency which is plagued by drugs and drug barons. As a citizen and an elected representative I must state that, notwithstanding what the Garda or the Revenue Commissioners may say, people are not happy. Deputy McCreevy referred to an incident which would have been terrifying for any of us and must have been so for the individual and his family. Notwithstanding that and the professional commitment of those involved, we must do more and be seen to do more than is currently the case.
I undertake to look at the Deputy's suggestion in the context of the constraints of this Bill as a Money Bill and what we must do in relation to amendments which might duplicate existing legislation. While we had jocose comments at an earlier stage about some aspects of the Finance Bill, including the occupation of various islands, this is clearly a serious matter. Not only must the law be clear and explicit, it must be seen to be so. If the Deputy will accept that response, we will look at ways it can be enforced without either duplication or setting up a conflict between sections in different legislation — I know that is not his intention. The thrust of what the Deputy said has my full support.
I am pleased with what the Minister said, as I imagined he felt like that. My amendment may not be watertight and it may have to be drafted in a different format. The thrust of what I said is what I am anxious to have included. The Minister responded positively, so I look forward to getting back to this on Report Stage. In defence of the Revenue Commissioners and the Inspectors of Taxes, I know how difficult this job is. It is a task which requires interaction between different agencies and forces of the State, but I believe it can be done. I do not visualise 200 people from these agencies getting together to do that. However, it is possible to do it effectively.
I said on Second Stage, in a different context, that I am somewhat concerned for the opposite reason. Some newspapers were recently in a position to publish some of the tax details of well known figures in this city. I am against that in principle because I defend the right of any citizen to have their tax affairs remain confidential — that is the law of the land — unless they break the law and it is published. If such information can be made public, the names of the individuals involved in the kind of teams about which I am speaking could also be made public. While people may have good motives in releasing that information, if they thought about it logically they would see it is the worst thing they could do. If confidentiality can be breached in that area, it will not be possible to do what the Minister and I are trying to achieve.
Having said that, I welcome the Minister's approach. I am not saying the wording of this amendment is the way to do it but the gist of what I am saying must be taken on board. I know the Government is prepared to face up to that and we must tackle it because we cannot continue in this way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 118 and 119 agreed to.