Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for giving me the opportunity to raise this important matter. It has been said that the best servants of the people, like the best valets, whisper unpleasant truths into their masters' ears. It is a matter of some regret that in the case of the Tánaiste his advisers did not heed this advice; rather they allowed him effectively to endorse the codification of tax fraud, and the country is still paying the price. The Exchequer may well have lost out financially on other tax revenues which could have been collected were it not for the diversion of staff. Overall the Exchequer has possibly lost out to the tune of several hundred million pounds — the difference between the 15 per cent bargain basement rate and what would have been collected if these staff had not been diverted. It is hardly surprising that the details are being kept under wraps.
The most damaging political blow wielded by Fianna Fáil on the reputation of the Labour Party during the past ten days was the deliberate and calculated leaking by sources close to the Taoiseach of the quiescent stance of Labour Ministers at Cabinet when the tax amnesty came up for approval. We have the Taoiseach's word for it that with the exception of the Minister for Finance not one Minister complained about the implementation of the tax amnesty. Labour Party supporters and compliant taxpayers will find it unbelievable that not one of the six Labour Ministers around the Cabinet table raised a murmur of dissent when this charter for cheats and criminals was put in place, a charter which was subsequently availed of by the Goodman organisation which professionally organised the biggest tax evasion scam in the history of the State.
This is not just a question of financial loss to the State, it also relates to the damage caused to our moral credibility. The granting of an amnesty to those who deliberately set out to avoid paying their fair share of tax was wrong in 1989 and in 1993 when the Labour Party gave it its imprimatur. Tax evasion is not a mere misdemeanour, it is a crime. Every pound in tax avoided is an extra pound on the tax burden of compliant taxpayers, ordinary citizens whom the Government promised to champion.
Last year was a bad one for the taxpayer. There was a threat that the tax system would be undermined as a result of the implementation of the Waiver of Certain Tax Interest and Penalties Act, 1993. The Constitution is a masterpiece of brevity and clarity on this point. It clearly sets out the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General — he shall be appointed by the President on the nomination of Dáil Éireann and shall report to Dáil Éireann. It is clear that the constitutional status of the office held by the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot be undermined by laws passed by this House.
In regard to his report, the Comptroller and Auditor General has said he was informed by the Revenue Commissioners that "whatever about the formal legal position, it was their view that the publication of the carrying out of such an exercise and of the comments based on it would call into question the fundamental confidentiality arrangements on which the incentive amnesty was based", This is a reference to the attempts by the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out on a random sample basis an analysis of certain data concerning the efficacy of the tax amnesty. It appears that he has been obstructed from doing his work in the manner he is entitled to do as a constitutional officer of the State.
The Minister for Finance was alone among his Cabinet colleagues in opposing the tax amnesty. This explains the timidity with which he put the measure through the House. However, he managed to extend it without ever giving us a credible explanation as to why he was doing so. Having regard to the information which has come to light, one wonders why he did.
This is an issue which requires more explanation. Can the Minister assure the House that, irrespective of any requirements of confidentiality legislated for by this House, the Comptroller and Auditor General, as a constitutional officer of the State, will not be obstructed in carrying out such analysis as he feels is necessary to measure the effectiveness of the tax amnesty as against people who previously availed of the 1989 tax amnesty and what would have been yielded if the ordinary tax collection system of the State was allowed to do its job in the normal fashion?