Mr. Jim Clarken:

I suppose we have a number of issues with it and a number of reasons we specifically think this should be a global body. For example, if Ireland was not a member of the OECD and suddenly this body decided to design a new system that we were not part of, would we around here think it acceptable to join that after the rules had been created? More than 100 country Governments have been excluded from the agenda setting. I mentioned that at the start. I should have also said the OECD's processes are opaque. It has already determined that it will not be critical of countries within the club, for example, it has narrowly defined what a tax haven is. Understandably, the OECD is committed to advancing the benefit to its members, as opposed to the world which is what we think needs to happen, and it has limited its agenda specifically to BEPS whereas a UN body could have a much broader remit.

Also, there is a lack of transparency and possibility to engage with and challenge the OECD on these processes, compared with what a UN-mandated body would be obliged to do, for civil society, for media and for opposition to the various proposals that are being put forward. It is important that the membership involved in this matters. The OECD is based in Paris and developing countries have limited enough access to it. In the UN institutions, the poorest countries are given financial support to participate where they do not necessarily have the technical or financial expertise or capacity to be involved. By definition, it will be an unbalanced outcome. We have to acknowledge it is better than where we were but it is not the right vehicle.