Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I am surprised at this provision because it appears to be far over the top. I am probably guilty of not knowing the Constitution well enough but it appears likely that it would be outside a person's constitutional rights to do this. If I understand "the relevant person to the taxpayer as emoluments under contract of service" correctly, it means that if somebody is entitled to a salary, the Revenue Commissioners may take that amount of money out of the emoluments. As Senator O'Toole said we all want to ensure those who owe tax pay it. However, it seems to say the Revenue Commissioners can take all the person's salary and the total emoluments - the Bill does not seem to say it can take a portion of it over a number of years. It might be somebody working for the State who owes money and the State will be able to take every single penny of it. It seems that such a person would not be able to feed his or her family and to carry on a normal life. I imagine it is highly unlikely that the provision is constitutional, although I do not know the Constitution well enough to be able to say that it is so. However, I believe this is one particular flaw in the Bill. If there is any part of the Bill on which we should be able to pass a recommendation, it is this section. It is highly unlikely that it is constitutional. We are supposed to have a second look at legislation in this House, so this is exactly what we should be doing and I compliment Senator Regan on finding it.