Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

I second the motion.

I wish to pick up on a point Senator McDowell made regarding the efficiency of the Revenue. Nobody could argue with the fact that the Revenue Commissioners have become far more efficient in their role in collecting taxes due to the Exchequer and the State from the myriad sources from which they need to be collected. One must commend them on that. However, the efficient collection of taxes is only one of the roles of Revenue.

In recent times I have received serious complaints from two accountants who have complained to me as a public representative that they have found it difficult, particularly in the past year or two, to deal with the Revenue in regard to employers, in particular, attempting to get their affairs settled by the end of the year. They are experiencing difficulty with Revenue officials coming back to them; they have to make endless telephone calls, points have to be checked and so on. I would like to Minister to consider those complaints in the context of compliant taxpayers, people who want to ensure their employees have full cover and that their responsibilities as employers and taxpayers are fully met. We must remember that the vast majority of people are compliant taxpayers. Hopefully, the culture of tax evasion and the sense in past years that it was a good thing to get away with not paying tax is gone and that culture has at least faded.

The subject of this motion is worth exploring. We are questioning whether the Revenue Commissioners are carrying out their other function of the effective prosecution of offenders, a role they play on behalf of members of the public, which we, the legislators, have given them to ensure that tax offenders are properly investigated and prosecuted.

In the change of culture that has occurred around the issue of taxation in the past 20 or so years, it is necessary to have a sense that Revenue, in acting on our behalf, is doing so in a way that ensures that compliant taxpayers are fairly and efficiently treated and that the full rigours of the law are reflected in the outcomes in respect of those who do not comply. Hence, the strong powers given to Revenue when the tax amnesty legislation was passed, to which my colleague, Senator McDowell referred.

There is a sense in the public domain that somehow tax offenders get away with it. There are penalties and one recalls the fairly recent publication of the list of the tax offenders; it is no bad thing that the list is published. However, the public embarrassment of one's name being on such a list and the financial penalty one must pay falls far short of a prosecution in court and of a potential penalty which might be handed down by the courts. That practice is a reflection of how the Legislature and members of the public view tax offenders. This is a matter I would like the Minister to examine. In other words, is it enough to simply have a financial penalty and the embarrassment of one's name being on such a list, even though that is quite severe in its own way? Why did we put a provision in regard to prosecution in the legislation? We, who are elected by the people, have placed it there to reflect our view and that of the public that tax offending is a serious offence. In that sense, it is a disappointment that it is not being fully exerted, and I believe members of the public share that view.

If one is a compliant taxpayer and reads in the newspapers that the full powers of the Revenue are not being exerted in this regard, it causes one to question why one would be a good, honest and upright citizen. There is a sense abroad that the full rigours of the law should not only be used but should be seen to be used and that there should be rigorous enforcement of the tax code and of the powers that have been given to the Revenue Commissioners.

There is much to be said for the separation of the roles of the collection of taxes, on the one hand, and prosecution of offenders on the other. The culture of the Revenue Commissioners is largely centred around the issue of collection, hence the issue of settlement. If a person is a tax offender, negotiations are entered into and there is a settlement. In other words, it is a case of getting the money in whatever happens, and that should be the case because the State and members of the public are entitled to have such tax revenue and to know that what is required to be paid is being paid. However, the issue of the pursuit and prosecution of offenders is extremely important and there is no doubt that there is a sense abroad that it is not being pursued as actively as it could be. It will have to be asked whether it is part of the culture of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners to do so. When one considers the Criminal Assets Bureau, for example, although the context is entirely different, one will note that the establishment of this single, dedicated unit to pursue a particular set of offenders has not only been highly effective, but has also resulted in a public perception that there is a serious commitment on the part of the State and Legislature to ensure that those offenders are prosecuted.