John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

The fact is that the sympathies of this Government continue to lie with those who are very well off as opposed to those who are at the lower end of society, struggling to make ends meet. I regret this and have no doubt that when people get a chance to express their views on it, they will be more than willing to do so.

If one examines the figures presented by the Labour Party, the point becomes clear. Last year, 36 individuals were sentenced for social welfare fraud while only one was sentenced for tax evasion. That is a startling statistic. I was surprised that the Government considered it necessary to amend the motion, which puts such stark statistics in the public domain. Anyone with a conscience would have to agree that a system that allows such inequality to exist cannot be defended or supported.

I am disappointed because I do not get any sense from the Government representatives here or from those with responsibilities in the Department of Finance that there will be a reversal in the figures I quoted from last year. I do not detect any urgency about ensuring that those who deliberately evade tax will suffer the full rigours of the law. Those who can afford to pay the top tax consultants, the best accountants or the best legal minds in the country have a better chance of avoiding a custodial sentence or any other penalty than those who have difficulties with social welfare over-payments. I wish to emphasise that social welfare fraud is a serious offence which I do not condone but the full rigours of the law that are applied to those engaging in such fraud should equally be applied to those who are known to be evading tax. It is clear that this is not the case.

Neither the motion nor amendment makes specific reference to the issue of tax revenue fines. In 2003 the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, made a statement in his annual report to the effect that one third of tax revenue fines remained uncollected. Perhaps the Minister for Finance can tell us what is the current situation in that regard. Mr. Purcell further stated in his report that there is little point in imposing such fines if they are not going to be paid. Given that such a large amount of tax revenue fines remained outstanding in 2003, surely the figure for the number of people convicted and given custodial sentences for tax evasion should be much higher than it is. I wish to know why the figure is not so. As with previous speakers, I do not necessarily believe that custodial sentences are appropriate in all cases, but there are situations where they must be imposed. It would be significant if the Government indicated that there would be a crack down on tax evasion, that wealthy people who evaded tax and did not avail of the amnesties to settle their affairs would be brought through the courts and face the full rigours of the law. I await the comments of the Minister in that regard.

I compliment the special investigations unit in the Revenue Commissioners, which has done an excellent job over the last few years. The unit has been given additional powers and has used them well in recent times. However, it is still clear that people are evading tax. Despite the rosy picture presented by Senator Mansergh and Government in general, many people are still evading tax in this State. I was struck by the reference in the Government amendment to a level of tax evasion of 2.5%, down from over 30% in the mid 1980s because I believe that 2.5% is still too much. To include such a reference in the amendment is inappropriate because people who evade tax are robbing from everyone. They are robbing from tax payers and people who pay their fair share as well as from education and health services.

I fully support the motion and compliment the Labour Party for tabling it because contrary to the popular perception, as espoused by Senator Mansergh, tax evasion still exists in this State.