Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

It is good that this debate is taking place. The motion and amendment provide an extreme contrast. The many discussions, revelations, tribunals and so on that have taken place in recent years make it clear that, in the past, two Irelands existed when it came to tax evasion. The debate has been about whether wealthy people who evaded tax escaped custodial sentences because they had sufficient money to go to court, unlike recipients of social welfare who did not have access to the same resources. Senator Mansergh questioned whether the custodial sentence was fundamental to the debate. I prefer people to pay their debt to society in a way that does not cost society more money.

The thing which worries wealthy people most is publicity, whether it be in the form of naming and shaming or community work. I have not often read of a wealthy person doing community service, but I have read of several reports involving poorer persons. I do not know why that should be. Community service should be productive and tangible and the community should be aware it is taking place. In that context if there are inadequacies in the sentencing regime I suggest that wealthy people be seen to give that tangible service. Many of these people, owing to their position and wealth, have many skills that the community may be lacking or cannot afford and if that person has to show up at a given time to provide those services free of charge and in the public gaze it would be an effective deterrent, not only to that person but to the people who observe it and who might have similar orientation.

There are two Irelands when it comes to the law. People with money are generally in a better position to defend themselves and to fudge and delay charges. There are several such cases at present. As for tax evasion, we are living in a totally different Ireland from the one we lived in ten or 15 years ago. It is certainly more transparent. I do not think we can be more draconian in the legislation we have provided to the Revenue Commissioners. Sometimes, indeed, we are sailing close to the wind of entrapping relatively innocent people, for there are such people. Only two weeks ago a woman visited me who was extremely distraught because she was caught up in a tax issue. She was a hard working woman and certainly not a millionaire and the amount in question was very small. She had worked very hard in a little business of her own, which I will not mention. Her whole world had fallen in on her and her biggest worry was that her name would be published in the newspapers. Her worry was not for herself but that her family might also feel stigmatised as a result.

The Minister said due process had to be at the heart of the system at all times. I fear that the more we clamour for draconian measures there is a danger we will push legislation to the limit. I am not suggesting that the Labour Party or the Opposition in general want them but a clamour has been generated by the media, by talk shows and by vox pops. I do not think such measures would serve the country or individuals well.

It is very difficult for the Revenue Commissioners to bring a case to a stage when they can bring it to a court of law. The documentation they require in order to pursue a prosecution may not be immediately available, deliberately or otherwise. Witnesses one would expect to come forward, particularly in a case of an errant employer, may not be available. I fear we might cut corners in the process and that due process itself would suffer as a result. It will not be the big person who will suffer in that scenario but the small person.

I sensed a reticence in the arguments of Fine Gael Members. They supported the essence of the motion but at the same time tried to balance it to ensure that what I envisage will not come to pass. This debate should have taken place without a comparison between social welfare fraud and tax evasion as it has distracted from more fundamental issues. I empathise with the arguments about social welfare recipients. We need to be careful that the small person does not suffer through lack of support or legal protection. The two issues are too far apart.

We should return to the fundamental principle that everybody should pay his or her fair share of tax. It should be transparent and there should be no room for escape. The maximum legislation, that will ensure due process is observed, should be made available and fine tuned if necessary. I have not heard the Revenue Commissioners asking for extra powers. They have recouped €2 billion in seven years, which is a lot of money. There have been many successful cases. There may be a shortage of inspectors but I understand that is being addressed as well. Everybody in this country is likely to get an audit once in every three years. That is a long way from where we were when people might not have a tax audit in their entire life.

I understand approximately 50% of Revenue resources in the south east were directed toward the construction industry. I worry that we might automatically assume a subcontractor is evading tax. The subcontractor plays a significant role in the construction industry and the development of the country and should be given the benefit of the doubt. Just because there may be a central contractor evading tax we should not assume the subcontractor is guilty by association. It is clear the Revenue Commissioners are prioritising resources in this area.

The debate is good but we should have focused more on fine tuning the procedures to ensure nobody slips through the net but that due process will apply. The people who suffer from this abuse are invariably the weaker people, in a social welfare context, who do not have sufficient money to defend themselves.