I support Deputy Colley in this but I can see where the Minister can take his approach. I can also see where Deputy Colley takes his attitude to this, as he also was a Minister for Finance. The Minister never misses a chance of trying to knock one section with the plea that the employee or the poor ordinary taxpayer will be caught anyway. I want to leave that kind of specious, political approach out of the matter as we are on the Committee Stage of a serious Bill. The Minister is doing a competent job on this and I do not want him to read any slur or slight in my saying this.
Does it not hang on what interpretations are there already? What would a judge ask for if he had to deal with this? The protagonists in this have legal experience. What are the judicial interpretations in this? The Minister has only mentioned one. There have been cases and there have been interpretations. What is the relevant state of the law from the point of view of interpretation in regard to this matter? Those Bills are coming so fast that it takes a lot of time to pursue such a point. The question of interpretation may cause trouble for all those Finance Bills which are before the House. I know this is a technical point but I would like to take up a point Deputy Colley has made.
I would like to give some background to what I say on this. I want, quite frankly, to confess my own conversion. I have already referred to this in the House and I cannot bring home the point too clearly in the public interest. I, like many others of the community, was too prone to adopt the point of view that the Revenue Commissioners were unreasonable publicans and tax gatherers in the gospel sense and that they should be anathema and defrauded and defeated at all points because they were grabbers. I was appointed by the House to the Committee that reviewed the various Finance Acts and then I realised the truth—that we had in this organisation a very responsible and fair minded organisation which did its duty to the State, carried out its responsibility and respected the rights of the citizens as best and as fully as it could. I am able to make this statement because in the course of the discussion, revealed to us in confidence without identification, were the actual problems the Revenue Commissioners had to face.
I come now to the second matter, about which I was very vocal in the past whether on the far side of the House or this side, namely, that Ministers for Finance under any Government always appeared to be rubber stamps for the Revenue Commissioners. Then I realised that the truth was that it was an unfair charge against Ministers for Finance. I realised that, with the information they had and the problems of the Revenue Commissioners, all the provisions, whether introduced by Deputy Colley or his predecessors or by the present Minister, had good reason and good ground. I realised that the real reason was that it was compelling. That is the background and we should not pervert that background by having undue suspicions.
The first principle for us should be to restrain the possibility for arbitrariness because there can be a slippery slope. That can be said without the least reflection on the Government or the Revenue Commissioners. I emphasise this because it is a bad approach on our part if we give the impression that it is a reflection on the integrity of either in a matter of this sort. In the public interest we should be careful about this. On good legal and legislative principle we should delegate as little arbitrary power as possible from this House. I believe that the public service who have the responsibility of executing the law would be glad to accept that principle. Arbitrary power is a responsibility that responsible and thinking people do not like to have and I am almost certain the Revenue Commissioners do not want to have arbitrary power.
On the other hand, the Revenue Commissioners have got to have the power to do their job fairly; it is important to emphasise the doing of the job fairly. In my view the Revenue Commissioners do the job to the best of any human ability. What is the approach to that? Where we have to make provisions of this sort the approach of Deputy Colley to err on the constrictive side and then to be prepared to meet the case where that is not sufficient is the better approach for this House. It may be a bit irk-some to the officer who has to execute it, but it is the safer approach. For a short while in the public service I carried some responsibility that had arbitrary powers attached to it and I realised the temptation of a manager or an executive to get a job done. That is one of the balances which on the constitutional scene is carried out by the courts.
I am putting this on a matter of principle. On the actual wording the Minister should be able to give a reasoned answer to the amendment from the point of view of legal interpretation. In that regard the Minister has not done enough. Deputy Colley is entitled to say that the safer form should be used on the principles I have outlined. This amendment is only one of a series of amendments and sections designed to give necessary powers. I agree that the powers are probably necessary. I use the word "probably" because I have not the information to say "certainly". I have no reason to doubt that, if I had all the information, I would not agree that the powers are necessary. Our Acts are now complicated by all this both from the point of view of the interpretation to be taken by the Revenue Commissioners for implementation, for understanding by the taxpayer and by Members but, above all for speedy administration.
If this is the position why not face the problem now and introduce a general provision? The Minister should take the safer course, safer from the constitutional and legal point of view rather than from the executive point of view, and accept Deputy Colley's amendment. It could be accepted conditionally on the basis that the question of the powers of the Revenue Commissioners would be examined in an effort to find a general format. The Revenue Commissioners can be trusted and we should remember that our Constitution is a control. This is not necessarily the complete abdication it might appear to be on the surface because our Constitution provides for the judicial function. The guardians of the judicial function, the judges and the courts, are jealous enough of their prerogatives and duties in this area and they would be quick enough to apply their correction if there was on overswing to the Executive side from the judicial side.
One of the arguments against the Minister's provision—even Deputy Colley's amendment will not meet it —is that the multiplicity of these decisions will provoke or invoke legal action. I imagine there is more on the Revenue Commissioners' files of legal difficulties and points and the solution of legal cases by settlement or agreement than ever appear in the courts, but that fact should not delude us. It should not prevent us seeing that that fact arises fundamentally from the position where the courts stand in this. With the multiplicity of these provisions and the fine distinctions the administrative process is greatly complicated. Therefore, I shall be bold enough to say here : why not consider what general powers can be given to the Revenue Commissioners in a simple way realising that those powers, when they step beyond the administrative level, trespass the judicial province and, accordingly, will be corrected? Were it my function to appeal to our Judiciary, to our Supreme Court in a matter of this nature I would say that their duty would be to apply the principles and the matter might be solved. Perhaps that sounds somewhat abstract but sometimes to get out of the maze of words and practical difficulties in which we get involved in this type of thing appeal to principle is the best course.
Would the Minister not at this stage accept Deputy Colley's amendment as being the safer course, pending a broad examination of the situation from the point of view of the overall powers of the Revenue Commissioners under all these Acts, in the matter of getting information, of surmounting obstacles of evasion which, again, must be divided into two parts, first, the obtaining of information and, secondly, the use of technical devices to evade a provision? There are two things involved here. Let us take the question of the obtaining of information. If one can work out a simple formula which will work—again one must work in a practical way to achieve that—a great deal of heartache, and unnecessary energy expended on the files would be obviated and there would result a broader system of equity. In other words, one would control tax evasion more surely and avoid the danger of trapping the honest. There would also be a better understanding between the Judiciary and the Executive in these matters. That is my suggestion to the Minister. I do not know if it is acceptable to him.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me such latitude on what is a section. I hope the Minister will appreciate that I am not merely trying to talk in the House. I am making, I hope, a very serious and important point to him and, through him, to all others responsible and affected by this as a matter of some deep public importance.