266 / 336
whatever capacity . ..". His point was why was that
phrase not used in this section if it is one that covers
everybody, including solicitors.
Mr. R. Ryan: It says : "any person" and then sub-
section (3) goes on to say :
A solicitor shall not be deemed for the purposes of .
paragraph (c) thereof to have taken part in a trans-
action by reason only that he has given professional
advice to a client in connection with that transaction.
It is a safeguard. I do not think anybody can suggest
that: "a person acting in any capacity" excludes solici-
tors.
Major de Valera: The Court might.
Mr. R. Ryan: It would be tantamount to saying that
solicitors are not persons.
Mr. Colley: It seems to me that there is a major
distinction between the 1967 Act and this provision in
that the 1967 Act is dealing with a case where a person
is in receipt of money. That does not arise at all in the
section we are dealing with. It seems to me that that
constitutes quite a difference in the approach to the
matter. If the Minister is contending that this sub-
section which refers to solicitors was introduced in ease
of solicitors, he is implying in that that, if that sub-
section had not been brought in, a client's privilege in
consulting a solicitor would have been totally taken
away, and in his giving advice.
Mr. R. Ryan: Not advice, because subsection (3)
deliberately excludes the giving of professional advice.
Mr. Colley: I am afraid that is not correct, as I
understand it. It provides that a solicitor shall not be
deemed for the purposes of paragraph (c) of sub-
section (2) thereof to have taken part in a transaction
by reason only that he has given professional advice.
That is the exclusion in relation to professional advice.
He is not deemed to have taken part in the transaction.
Subsection (3), which is the one we are concerned with
here, includes him if he has given advice.
Is the Minister saying that if subsection (3) were not
there the privilege of a solicitor and client relationship
would have disappeared completely in so far as it
related to any transactions, or advice in relation to
transactions, which could have been affected by sec-
tions 57, 58 and 60?
Mr. R. Ryan: No. Section 59 refers to the purpose
and the nature of the notice and the particulars which
must be furnished in reply—that and no more. Then
there is a further brake as to the information which
the solicitor may be required to give.
Mr. Colley: The Minister was representing that sub-
section as being in ease of the solicitor and client rela-
tionship. Does it not follow from that, that if it were
not there there would not be any easement of the
solicitor and client relationship? In view of all the
Minister has been telling us about the obligation and
necessity to stamp out this kind of activity, how does
he justify preserving the solicitor and client relation-
ship to the extent that he says he has done so under
subsection (3) ?
Mr. R. Ryan: Because the information which must
be furnished is sufficient to identify the persons engaged
in avoidance practices. Then the Revenue Commis-
sioners proceed to contact the people who are so
engaged. Once information is given which identifies
these people, it is possible to proceed after them. If they
withhold information, at least they are identifiable and
accountable to the law. The opportunity of conceal-
ment is frustrated by the section, which was the inten-
tion of the Legislature. It was debated on Second Stage.
I stayed up all night to afford the Opposition an oppor-
tunity to make whatever comments they wished to
make.
Mr. Colley: That was because the Minister brought
in the Bill too late.
Mr. Ryan: It was debated at length in the other
House and the matter was also aired in the newspapers.
It has been fully debated last year and this year and,
no doubt, we are all the wiser for having heard each
other's views.
Mr. B. Desmond: I wish to support the Minister.
I would have thought that by now the Fianna Fail
Party would have seen how flimsy are the very exclusive
and special pleadings they have been making here. I
have to declare my income to the Revenue Com-
missioners. Three-quarters of a million workers have to
declare their incomes, wages and salaries to the Revenue
Commissioners. We know the all-pervasive powers of
the Revenue Commissioners to obtain such information
from employers. It strikes a rather hollow note to hear
the Fianna Fail Party claiming virtually absolute privi-
lege for the special relationship between the client and
solicitor.
Mr. Colley: No, in relation to the State in general.
It has existed for centuries. It is for the protection of
the citizens. Is he for or against that?
Mr. B. Desmond: I was listening in my room. I read
last year's debates. I have read what I would regard in
relation to tax avoidance as the rather spurious argu-
ments put forward by Deputy O'Malley last year and
this year.
Mr. Colley: Every taxpayer is obliged to declare their
income.
Mr. B. Desmond: Except those who get special
advice from special people and special solicitors. The
people who are handling such transactions, especially
property transactions, could now be caught if the
Revenue Commissioners wished to exercise their powers.
' I have no doubt that in future some will be caught.
Not so long ago Deputy O'Malley said he would never
disclose any client's transaction to the Revenue Com-
missioners.
I suggest that Deputy Colley would not be very wise
in pressing this too publicly because, the more the
public become aware of the exigency of this special
relationship, particularly in relation to tax avoidance,
the more acutely they will become aware of the double
standards being applied by Fianna Fail. The Minister
is perfectly right in having this in the Bill.
Major de Valera: The point is that the use of the
words "any person" is not sufficient to capture it and
the Minister is assuming that it is. I say that if the
matter were tested that would not be broad enough.
The Minister probably realised that possibility and
solved this problem by assuming the general phrase
removes the privilege and this writes back in three-
quarters or most of the privilege and puts in a saver.
That is really what happened and that is really what
the Minister is basing his case on. As I say, this may
. 2 6 0