265 / 336
the Legislature in its anxiety to support the Executive
would be compelled by the Supreme Court to undo it
because of inroads on fundamental himan rights. Any
of us who are lawyers, and the Minister himself, will
know that the matter of privilege between solicitor and
client is not by any means a trivial thing.
Ruairi Brugha:
We contend that section 59 requires
persons engaged in a professional capacity in advising
clients to reveal information concerning clients and
thereby to break confidentiality. That is part of the
structure of the relationship between solicitors, accoun-
tants and their clients.
The Revenue Commissioners have the power to
direct any persons engaged in evasion of tax, whether
he be a representative of a company or an indivi-
dual, to provide whatever information the Commis-
sioners require. We contend that a totally different
issue is involved here and that is that a person em-
ployed in a professional capacity would be required
to disclose information about his clients. That seems to
be a fundamental issue. The Minister has not yet
satisfied me that this section does not require that of
persons engaged in a professional capacity. If it does not
require it then there is nothing wrong with the amend-
ment. If it does require it, that should be disclosed.
Mr. R. Ryan:
This section has only been enacted
since last year. I understand that a number of facts
have come to light which would warrant the use of this
section but it has not yet been used. It took some time
also to put into effect section 176 of the 1967 Act. We
have, of course, ample experience of how it has been
used and challenged unsuccessfully across the water.
Deputy de Valera suggested that section 176 of the
1967 Act was unimpeachable because it did not men-
tion solicitors whereas the 1974 Act did mention solici-
tors. The 1974 Act mentions solicitors only to restrict
the information which can be obtained from solicitors.
There is no restriction in the 1967 Act but there is a
specific limitation on the information which can be
obtained in the 1974 Act.
It was not possible in the 1974 Act to spell out the
several different types of situations which can be de-
veloped to engage in tax avoidance by transferring
assets abroad so the information which the Revenue
Commissioners are authorised to get is such as they
think necessary for the purpose of determining whether
or not funds have been sent abroad with a view to
avoiding liability to tax. It then puts a limit on the
information which a solicitor may be required to give.
The situation has now been fully ventilated. I can
express considerable sympathy and understanding with
the various views that have been expressed here today.
If any person feels aggrieved because of the use of the
section if and when it is applied he will have his
remedy. I personally would not feel any sense of disap-
pointment if the Courts took a view different from that
taken by the Legislature as to the appropriateness and
constitutionality of this section. I accept that they are
there as defenders of the liberty of the people. I am
unable to accept the amendment.
Mr. Colley:
The point Deputy de Valera was making
was that the 1967 Act phrase is : "Every person who in
Insurance
problem
/olver/
M COYLE HAMILTON
Coyle Hamilton Hamilton Phillips Group,
Incorporated Insurance Brokers,
Phoenix House, Sth. Leinster St., Dublin 2.
Telephone 687211.
Coyle Hamilton, through specialised com-
panies, provides the complete range of
insurance services from a single source.
We specialise in industrial and commer-
cial insurance; offer risk management
and valuation services. Life and Pensions;
International Insurance; Bloodstock; Re-
insurance; Regional services and tailor-
made services for the smaller business-
man — all are provided.
With Coyle Hamilton you get the best of
both worlds — personal service by expert
executives, backed by the resources of a
big professional organisation.
. 2 5 9