Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the detailed analysis they have done and the important work on raising these issues. It is especially instructive to hear the interaction between non-governmental organisations, NGOs, that are represented by the witnesses and Action Aid and the Department and Revenue in terms of unearthing particular practices. As Mr. McCaughey said, it is alarming that NGOs uncovered these anomalies, particularly the issue with Zambia. However, it is good to hear Revenue took action on them once they were unearthed.

My question relates to some of the witnesses' conclusions in terms of the idea of a follow-up spillover analysis and that this should not have been intended as a one-off. When I look at the response from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which it must be said we got very late this morning, and it was a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade response rather than a Department of Finance response, it strikes me that some of its comments on the witnesses' critique relate to time lag and that, effectively, whatever criticisms they made of the spillover analysis have been rectified because, for example, Zambia and Pakistan treaties have been renegotiated and there have been changes. In the time since both the report and the witnesses' critique of the report, the Government has signed the Addis Tax Initiative and Seamus Coffey's review of the corporate tax code has been published.

How can we address the problem that it is very difficult to find out exactly the issues with the spillover analysis when inevitably there will be a time lag in terms of the policies investigated, the publication of the report and then the critique? For example, should we have a rolling spillover analysis? Should there be a unit within the Department of Finance, presumably with links to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Revenue, to ensure there is an ongoing review of our tax policies? We all acknowledge those are changing all the time and that significant attempts have been made to address the very serious critiques of the likes of the double Irish and so on, but it very difficult for us as legislators to see the state of play currently. What are the criticisms that are currently valid and what changes can be made to address those critiques? I am sorry for the somewhat rambling question but it is about how we can best ensure that critiques will have an effect, that we can ensure changes that will have an impact and that we are not coming to this very late after changes have been made that have addressed the critiques the witnesses have made.

Did NGOs have an input into the Coffey review of the corporate tax code? Are they happy with some of the recommendations that were made? Do they believe the Addis initiative sign-up in 2017 will change anything? Should that see improvements in our structures? What do the witnesses think of the idea of some facility for ongoing spillover analysis to be carried out on that cross-institutional basis so that it is not just a matter for the Department of Finance, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Revenue?