Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will briefly pick up on Senator Hayden's concluding point in which she welcomed the pre-legislative scrutiny process. Scrutiny of all aspects of public policy is needed and we should engage in the process to the best of our abilities. I welcome the Bill, which Sinn Féin will support.

While many members of the public will not be familiar with the work of the Appeals Commissioners, it is an important office.My party's approach to this Bill, as during pre-legislative scrutiny, is to ensure transparency and fairness in the appeals system open to citizens when dealing with their tax affairs. After much debate, my party still believes that this Bill should be improved in two ways, one of which was mentioned here earlier.

The first issue is the removal of private hearings in the appeals process. It has been mentioned here a good deal. I am aware that during the pre-legislative scrutiny process many stakeholders expressed views on that and that, in itself, brought about the changes in relation to the hearings. We are told that as a rule, hearings will be in public but the reality is that by giving an opt-out few, if any, will opt for a public hearing. This could be seen as a step backwards and a climbdown on one of the core issues of this reform. My party has tabled amendments on this issue but I will speak to it here this afternoon, and I know the Minister of State will come back to it.

All hearings will be accompanied by written determinations but I do not know whether this, in itself, will be sufficient. It is a good Bill but this issue might be seen as a weakness. It is often said that not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. Senator Hayden reflected on some of the concerns on this during pre-legislative scrutiny. I was not a member of the committee involved and some of these issues were new to me. It would be good to hear in the House the Minister of State reflect on the debate that occurred during pre-legislative scrutiny and why the Department agreed to change the draft heads of the Bill.

The second key issue my party would have relates back to what other Senators were talking about, namely, the removal of the right of appeal to the Circuit Court. The Government is sticking to its guns here on this issue and going against the members of the committee who sought that the right of appeal to the Circuit Court be maintained. Like other Senators, I would ask the Minister to reconsider this.

There is a pattern to remove the right of access to the Circuit Court for citizens. We have seen this in the Customs Act 2015 which was recently passed and in the Financial Services Ombudsman process. The idea that persons abuse the appeal system would not stand up to scrutiny. The Minister will say this is the way it is for other State bodies, but that does not make it right and that is not the issue before us. The question has to be whether we want citizens to be able to have their day in court or whether it is to be made more difficult and only available in certain circumstances. For example, I note Senator Quinn mentioned the issue of only being able to appeal on a point of law. That is an important consideration.

There is a lot to be welcomed in this legislation. A more transparent system with decisions recorded systematically for the first time is a positive move. The idea of a record of decision to provide guidance is clearly sensible.

As I stated, my party will support this Bill. We have tabled some amendments. However, I think the issues have been thrashed out on Second Stage. As I stated, I would like it if the Minister of State could respond to the issues about the pre-legislative scrutiny and the issue of the public versus private hearings.