David Norris (Independent)

This will be my last comment. The Minister of State broadly stated that no one's entire income will be taken. I challenged him repeatedly to point to a place in the legislation where this is made clear. Perhaps this is possible, either in this legislation or in other legislation. So far he has not done so. Perhaps he will.

It is a debt. My colleagues are quite correct to raise the spectre of the debtors' prison. The Minister of State suggested we on this side of the House were in support of tax evasion. I ask him to withdraw that. Every one of us in sequence has stated clearly in this House that we all believe it is appropriate that people should pay their taxes. As far as I am aware, we all do. Certainly, I make strenuous efforts to pay every last penny.

He then stated this is a matter of last resort. That may be the case in practice to date but we have never had experience of the operation of this legislation. Nothing in this section or elsewhere states that this is a weapon of last resort or that it can only be used against persistent, deliberate and calculating tax evaders, which is what the Minister of State said, but there is nothing in the legislation that specifies that.

I am disappointed. I know the Minister of State of old. I remember him since he was a Member of this House and a more good-natured and decent person one could not meet. He is assuming that this will be the same as the Revenue Commissioners, as we all do. This legislation makes wide provision and one cannot assume that this will always be the position. If it is the position, why not make it clear in law? Why not make clear it is a last resort for persist defaulters and all the rest of it and that the basic income necessary to sustain decent human existence will be protected? That is not in the legislation. If, as several of my colleagues have suggested, this is susceptible to a constitutional challenge and if that was successful, then the State will be stuck with another bill.