The Gazette 1975

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 for- mat. The Revenue Commissioners can be trusted and we should remember that our Constitution is a con- trol. This is not necessarily the complete abdication it might appear to be on the surface because our Con- stitution provides for the judicial function. The guar- dians 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 Ex- ecutive side from the judicial side. One of the arguments against the Minister's pro- vision 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 difficul- culties 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 the fact arises fundamentally from the position where the Courts stand in this. With the multiplicity of these provisions and the fine dis- tinctions the administrative process is greatly complic- ated. 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 w a y realis- ing that those powers, when they step beyond the ad- ministrative 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. Wou ld 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 Commis- sioners under all these Acts, in the matter of getting information, of surmounting obstacles of evasion These must be divided into two parts, first, the ob- taining of information and, secondly, the use of tech- nical devices to evade a provision? If one can work out a simple formula which will work, a great deal of heartache, and unnecessary energy expended on the files would be ob- viated and there would result a broader system of equity. In othér words, one would control tax evasion more surely and avoid the danger of trapping the hon- est. There would also be a better understanding be- tween the Judiciary and the Executive in these matters. Mr. R. Ryan: I have no objection to a great deal of what Deputy de Valera said. Of course, one does not wish the administration of tax to be oppressive or bur- densome. There is little evidence that, i n fact, the ad- ministration of tax law here operates in that way. Certainly, I would be as anxious as is the Deputy to keep a careful watch on the situation. If occasion should arise which would indicate that its operation had acted oppressively, I would be only too anxious to invite the Oireachtas to change the laws. W e are at present being asked to consider amend- .192

actual problems the Revenue Commissioners had to us in confidence without identification, were thr ment because in the course of the discussion, revealed face. I come now to the second matter, 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 realise 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 back- ground by having undue suspicions. The first principle for us should be to restrain the possibility for arbitrariness because there can be a slip- pery slope. That can be said without the least reflect- ion on the Government or the Revenue Commisioners. 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 responsibi- lity th?.t responsible and thinking people do not like to have. On the other hand, the Revenue Commissioners have got to have the power to do their job fairly. In my view the Revenue Commissioners do the job to the best of any human ability. 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 bet- ter approach for this House. It may be a bit irksome to the officer who has to execute it, but it is the safer ap- proach. For a short time 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. Deputy Colley is entitled to say that the safer form should be used on the prin- ciples I have outlined. I agree that the powers are prob- ably necessary. 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 im- plementation, 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