223 / 336
The advantage to the Revenue Commissioners in-
volved in the section is, to say the least, minimal. How-
ever, the disadvantage to the Revenue Commissioners
ultimately will be far more than minimal, it will be
very extensive. In the meantime the whole question
of the relationship of solicitor and client will have been
attacked and undermined and that has implications far
outside any Finance Bill or any activity of the Revenue
Commissioners. It can extend right across..«•he board
to the various activities in which our citizens engage,
wheher under the purview of the criminal or the civil
law.
The Minister should know a frontal assault on this
relationship would be unsuccessful but a small assauít
on just one section of the relationship can be followed
up by an extension of that beachhead further and
further until the whole relationship and its position in
law is eroded. Therefore, it is our duty to resist any
such encroachment, in particular to resist it when the
alleged excuse for it—in other words, the benefits that
may accrue through the Revenue Commissioners get-
ting certain information—is artificial and fictitious.
There is no benefit for the Revenue Commissioners
from what is provided here in regard to the informat-
ion that can be sought. It is fictitious.
Mr. R. Ryan: One would think from what Deputy
Colley has said that section 59 of the 1974 Act did not
provide special protection for relationship between soli-
citor and client. Of course it does. It specifically guards
that relationship. It could be very interesting to study
why it is that emotion seems to spurt out of the mouths
of Members of Parliament when seated in Opposition
benches and that realism tends to be the order of the
day on the part of those in Government benches.
I wish to make clear what the position is in relation
to the provisions of the 1974 legislation. The section
Deputy Colley is seeking to amend provides for a limi-
tation of the information to be given by solicitors to the
Revenue Commissioners. No professional gentleman is
entitled to any privilege whatsoever other than the
privilege of his client—no solicitor may go into court
and seek privilege for his own protection. He may
claim, and the Court grant, privilege in relation to the
protection of his client's interest.
The people against whom this section is directed are
those who are believed to be engaging in tax avoidance,
who are failing in their statutory obligation to furnish
information to the Revenue Commissioners, and it
would be totally wrong for Parliament to allow any
person who has an obligation to pay tax to shield
behind a professional adviser. That would be making a
mockery of legislation, it would be creating a pretence
of having an efficient tax system which could not be
seriously entertained.
Under the existing general law, lawyers, whether
solicitors or barristers, are allowed to claim that infor-
mation supplied to them in the course of consultation
enjoys the privilege of confidentiality, and advice given
by lawyers is under the general law and under the 1974
Finance Act absolutely privileged : no lawyer can be
called on to give details of the advice.
Deputy Colley is seeking to insert the word "advice".
The wording of the amendment has been circulated.
Advice is not something which the Revenue Com-
missioners can demand particularly. They may demand
in respect of solicitors only the names and addresses of
the transferor or transferee associated in certain opera-
tions, in other words the names and addresses of persons
engaged in tax avoidance practices, so that the Revenue
Commissioners may then go after the people themselves
in the same way as they would pursue any person who
is liable for tax. I use the word "pursue" not in the
sense of giving chase but in the sense of contacting
people who have an obligation to furnish information.
The only information being sought is that which
would identify persons who may be liable. That is all.
The professional person need not furnish any informa-
tion unless and until the person concerned has the
authority of his client to do so.
The traditional privilege between banks and their
customers in relation to transactions between them is
also well established in law. Because of the privilege
that obtains between solicitors and their clients and
banks and their customers, subsections (3) and (4) were
inserted to protect that privileged position. To that
extent, therefore, the Deputy's amendment in relation
to advice given by a solicitor or barrister is met and is
clearly seen to be met. Where, however, a solicitor has
acted in connection with the actual transfer or any
associated operation, then he must give the particulars
I already mentioned, the names and addresses of per-
sons involved.
I mentioned last year in the Seanad that I was dis-
appointed the solicitors' profession did not acknowledge
that their position was being protected under the Act.
Instead, some solicitors, and Deputy Colley today, have
done a public disservice by insinuating that there was
improper interference with the confidentiality that
should exist between solicitors and clients. Our neigh-
bours in Britain are no less jealous of the confidentiality
of relationships between solicitors and clients. There has
been no lack of trust in solicitors or barristers in Eng-
land where the section to which such emotive exception
has been taken here has been in operation for 39 years.
Both Parliament and courts in England have said that
it was a duty of everybody to pay a fair share of tax
and that Parliament had a duty to ensure that consul-
tation with professional people did not give a protection
which ordinary citizens did not enjoy. The unrealistic
nature of the criticism levelled against the provisions of
the 1974 Act is illustrated by the fact that whereas
Deputy Colley and some others on behalf of the solici-
tors' profession said that the section is unacceptable,
the Institute of Chartered Accountants have sought to
have applied to them the very exceptions and privileges
which the section confers on solicitors. It would be
strange, if it was challenging a confidential relationship,
that accountants should seek to enjoy the same privi-
leges as have been conferred on lawyers by the section.
Mr. Colley: Privileges were not conferred. Privileges
were taken away by the section. In the case of solicitors
the privilege existed and the Minister knows that.
Mr. R. Ryan: Subsection (3) specifically limits the
information which can be obtained from solicitors. The
legal profession, like every other profession, have a
duty to tell their clients what the legal position is and
that duty involves informing clients if steps about to be
taken by them infringe the tax law. I am sure the
.217