Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Obviously, we disagree on these things. I will not labour the point, but will make my final intervention on the group of amendments. In direct response to the last point, I note that the Bill is supposed to deal specifically with small and medium enterprises. It is not supposed to give rise to a debate about foreign direct investment. As such, that particular argument does not hold.

Ironically, it might be relevant if some of my other questions are not addressed adequately. Could this measure be abused by companies that are not supposed to benefit? Under its own terms, the Bill is not supposed to be about foreign direct investment but about extending tax breaks to encourage domestic SMEs.

On the issue of information already available from the Comptroller and Auditor General, the amendments are trying to achieve an intersection of various Departments or State aids for companies that link together. The Bill is from the Minister of State's Department, but its subject matter also involves Revenue and possibly other Departments that are supporting companies. We will not fully understand how much of a benefit may be conferred on particular companies, how much public money will be expended and whether we will receive any benefit in return unless we have the whole rather than a fragmented picture. The amendments in this series try to ensure we would have the full picture.

In terms of revenue forgone, come on. Surely I only have to say the words "Apple" and "section 110". Regardless of what the Minister of State thinks about this or which side he takes - we take different sides on these matters - all sides agree that section 110 was abused. The information was not available or scrutinised. It was not transparent enough to allow people to know that the vulture funds which had many property assets were paying no tax at all. We only found out after the fact. We still do not know how much tax was forgone because of section 110, but the estimates run into billions of euro. This is serious stuff. To my mind, it is a minimum requirement that we know how much tax will be forgone under a measure such as this in order that we can monitor the position. I am unsure as to whether the Minister cited an estimate on Second Stage. Does the Minster of State have a projected estimate of how much tax will be forgone in the first year or over time? If he does, we will need to test it against the actuality as time passes. If we find that the figure balloons beyond the estimated amount, it might be evidence of major abuse. It is critical that we have this level of oversight, reporting and monitoring of such tax breaks. I have argued strongly that the Committee on Budget Scrutiny should examine every subhead under the corporate tax heading through which tax liability is reduced.