Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 23 June 2004
36 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Finance the reason he did not act on the suggestion from the Standards in Public Office Commission to consider amending section 21(4) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001 to provide it with additional powers of investigation into evidence of compliance with the Tax Acts provided to it by Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. [18613/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs I informed the House in a previous reply, a suggestion was made to me by the Standards in Public Office Commission in December 2003. It wanted consideration to be given to amending section 21(4) of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. It would enable the commission to conduct additional investigations into evidence of tax compliance provided to it by Members. Such evidence takes the form of a tax clearance certificate and a statutory declaration that must be provided to it by a Member within a certain period.
The suggestion raised a number of issues on the functions of the Revenue Commissioners. One such issue is information obtained in the course of an investigation that may already have been undertaken by Revenue into an individual's tax affairs. In particular, the amendment suggested gave rise to the question of waiving Revenue confidentiality for such tax affairs. Issues also arose in the context of a prosecution for a false statutory declaration. It related to the evidential status of information that may have been obtained by the Revenue Commissioners for the purposes of recovering tax, interest and penalties due.
These considerations may not present insurmountable obstacles to the commission's suggestion. However, they support my view that the need for additional powers of investigation for it under section 21(4) was not established. The Revenue Commissioners have considerable powers to investigate the tax affairs of any person, including Members. They can pursue, as appropriate, the relevant penalties in the case of non-compliance. Any Member in breach of his or her tax obligations or who may have made false tax returns faces the prospect of investigation under the Tax Acts.
On 5 May the Standards in Public Office Commission issued a press statement. It stated that the Committee of Members' Interests of Dáil Éireann had determined, by resolution, that an investigation should be carried out by the Commission pursuant to section 22(2)(5)(b) of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995, as inserted by Schedule 1 of the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the investigation before commenting further.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is considering, in consultation with my Department, a separate suggestion by the commission. It wants to amend the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 by changing the timescale whereby a possible offence under section 6 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1938 could be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I await the deliberations of that Department.
