Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I thank everybody for participating in the debate, even those who disagreed with me. I especially thank Senator Norris for being swayed by Senator Mansergh into supporting the Labour Party, and I thank Senator Mansergh for his contribution to the improvement of numbers on this side of the argument.

I would like 20 minutes to reply to each point raised, but I will instead make a few specific points on issues that crossed my mind as I listened to my colleagues debating. In the 1980s, those on the left such as myself were accused of living in cloud cuckoo land when we stated that the country was awash with tax evasion. Even when evidence of inconsistencies were produced, we were told it was the product of imagination. It took years to discover that the country had so much tax evasion. Everybody denied it and denounced it as fiction, including Governments and Revenue Commissioners. It was argued that there was no pool of untaxed income or other forms of revenue out there. There was, however, an enormous pool of such money.

I deliberately left income tax out of this debate, although people such as Senator Mooney are bringing up my begrudgery towards people who make much money. The good example is not income tax where one can argue forever about who has the right to specific money, but the theft of VAT. When VAT is collected and not transmitted to the State, an act of fraud and theft has been carried out. When somebody does business and does not charge VAT, it is essentially theft from competitors, as the person or company is taking an illegal and fraudulent competitive advantage. Why should people who carry out these actions not be brought before the courts? I do not care if they go to prison as long as we stop sending social welfare recipients to prison as well. According to overwhelming evidence, prison does not work and serves no purpose in correcting people. I have the least amount of interest in seeing elderly gentlemen, be they formerTaoisigh in this country or former presidents of Chile, go to prison in their old age.

I have interest in creating a public perception that if an offence is committed, whether a person ends up in court is entirely unrelated to whether he or she is rich or poor. A person should go to court, be charged and be punished in accordance to the offence, be it fraud, theft or something else. It should not matter where that person comes from. I was outraged some years ago by a person who defrauded a major charity having a queue of eminent people looking to give character references.

With regard to arguing whether a person should go to prison or be punished, it has been argued by some lawyers that their client has come from a good family and should not go to prison. Logically speaking, those who come from good families should be further up the queue for punishment than those who did not get a good chance in their life. I have a view on the prison system and I will not allow it to be distorted in this debate.

Why is it that the Revenue Commissioners see the deliberate theft involved in VAT fraud as being unworthy of prosecution? According to statistics, 31 cases were accepted for investigation for prosecution by the appropriate section of the Revenue Commissioners in 2004. In the same year, 476 cases were referred to the Chief State Solicitor for prosecution for social welfare offences. The prison issue should be omitted as it is to a degree a red herring. Fifteen times more people were threatened with prosecution for social welfare fraud than for tax fraud. I want to know why this is so.

The Minister was at his most lugubrious in stating that: "I know of no evidence that would support this unwarranted allegation. Surely the Senators who put down that motion should think again about this wording, which strikes me as entirely inappropriate." When I hear a Fianna Fáil Minister state something such as this, I know I have been successful in making a point. The wording of the motion is entirely appropriate as it is within the Government's power to insist that people should be prosecuted wherever they are discovered. I can only imagine what would come about if the Garda stopped prosecuting people for fraud generally, provided these people paid the money back along with a penalty. Again, I can only imagine what would occur if white-collar criminals knew that if they were caught they could pay back the money along with a penalty of 50%, for example.

Every person who settled with the Revenue Commissioners could do so, and we do not know how much money they managed to make from the sum of money that was not paid ten years ago, for example. How much money could a person have made in ten years if, for example, €1 million was put into property? The property could be worth €10 million at this stage because of the property boom. The person would have avoided €1 million in tax and paid back €2 million, leaving a clear profit of €8 million. We should not grieve too much over penalties, which would have been paid by people who could afford to pay them.

This is a fundamental point, rather than the issue of imprisonment, punishment, vengeance, greed or envy. Two different organs of the State, both accountable to Government and allegedly implementing policy, take entirely different views on dealing with criminal activity. One prosecutes almost 500 people, the other considers prosecuting 31.

If it is not a matter of policy, the Revenue Commissioners are out of control. If the Revenue Commissioners are subject to legislation and general oversight by the Oireachtas and the Government, it is a matter of policy. This amounts to a policy to prosecute the poor and be lenient on the rich. This relates to the motion.