This section should be tightened up. I accept as the Minister has said that thugs and blackguards exist who will flout the law but there are also many honest people. I disagree with giving powers of arrest in this instance without protection for the individual. I ask the Minister to look at that on Report Stage.
SECTION 215.
Amendment No. 149 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 215 stand part of the Bill."
Was it the Minister's intention that powers of arrest should be used in circumstances of physical obstruction or physical interference or would they be used in the case of somebody not co-operating with an audit?
The Revenue Commissioners will not compel the garda to arrest. The garda will use his own judgment as to whether a person should be arrested. The arrest is for disturbance and not for not producing a document.
Could the Minister amend the section to narrow the application to physical obstruction and physical interference such as setting a dog on somebody, jostling or assault? If somebody demands a document and a taxpayer does not comply that should not be interpreted as interference which would give a garda power of arrest.
There is a danger when an inspector goes to a taxpayer accompanied by a garda — Revenue officials already have powers after judgments to bring the sheriff and the garda — that the garda would have to act on the instruction of the Revenue official who would then take on the role of judge and jury.
No. The Revenue Commissioners have no power to instruct a garda. The garda is present only in a peace keeping r�le.
I would like that included in the legislation.
That is what it already says.
It is not as clear as it might be.
I can put it clearly on the record. The garda will be there only to forestall any breach of the peace.
What is on the record is one thing; practice may be another. This section will have tightened up because the Revenue Commissioners explain to people in many instances when they are trying to bring about a settlement that they are obliged by statute to do such and such a thing. That is a sensitive issue.
I agree with the Deputy. The presence of the garda should make it better for both parties involved because he can act as a judge. The Deputy seems to be implying that the section allows the Revenue Commissioners to ask a garda to arrest. It does not say that anywhere in the Act. A Revenue official has no right to decide on an arrest; that is a matter for the Garda.
I will come back to that on Report Stage.
I do not mind clarifying it again on Report Stage.
I think the Minister should consider an amendment which would clearly confine the meaning to physical obstruction and interference. In cases which went to court, the court has judged that refusal to give information was obstruction. A garda would not arrest people in situ on that basis but would let matters take their course in law.
Is a refusal to give information an indictable offence under Revenue law? If it was the garda would have the power to arrest.
We can clear this later but in this case the garda is there to avoid a breach of the peace. He is not there to backup the Revenue Commissioners by arresting a person for not handing over some file.
If a refusal to give information is regarded as interference, the officer——
One would need to look at the circumstances.
If it is indictable the garda not only has the right but the obligation to arrest.
The case alluded to was on information and records.
Maybe on Report Stage the Minister might look at it.
The difficulty is that if the Revenue Commissioners are not able to go in and get records easily or if they are blocked from getting records then they are wasting their time because the principle——
It is like the Telecom case. If one cannot follow the money trail and get documents relating to transactions, one can throw one's hat at it.
Most of the additional powers here arise from Revenue's experience first, with self-assessment, where a taxpayer is given a free hand, and second, from experiences of major fraud during the last twelve months. The Revenue Commissioners maintain that without these additional powers, they are wasting their time, particularly with the self-assessed.
Does the Minister envisage making additional powers available in the Autumn Finance Bill?
No. We will operate these powers. We have had discussions with and listened to the various elements of the profession. That is how the few amendments to the two sections arose. The provisions may have been going slightly too far. The profession, in most cases, agrees. There may be a problem with understanding, because it is a question of going back 20 years and trying to integrate what is new and what is not. We can try to clarify some aspects of the provision. I accept that these powers are strong. That is necessary if we are to undertake the task. In relation to the Goodman position, Revenue would not have been able to get the records or anything about the deals which came up outside. They would have had no right to ask about those deals.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 216, 217 and 218 agreed to.