Dr. Miche?l Collins:

I thank the Deputy for her question. This committee has made enormous progress in its engagement on this issue, and its recommendations are very welcome. The phrase "shadow budget" is absolutely accurate. It is one that has not been examined in anywhere near the level of detail that it should have over time for reasons of having space to do so, which this committee has been very good at creating. I compliment the committee on creating space and obtaining information in order to be able to engage with that as well.

I share the frustration of the committee that we, in a sense, have one issue and two wings of the State providing us with different pieces of information on it. That is frustrating. I encourage the committee to strongly pursue that recommendation for the two views to come together.

It speaks a little to my earlier points on the definition of the role of the Revenue Commissioners. The Office of the Revenue Commissioners is an extraordinarily competent organisation in doing what it is required legislatively to do, which is to run and administer the taxation system, and is among the top organisations internationally doing that. Missing from the Revenue Commissioners' remit, however, is an expectation that they explicitly provide information to contribute to the policy formation process. That is not to say they do not do it. They do, but it is very much a sideline or secondary issue for the Revenue Commissioners. From my observation of that over time, it seems there is potential to make a reform there in order that there be an expectation of a requirement to provide that information on an ongoing basis.

I echo the view that it is not just about getting the information but also, whether it is in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Finance or the Parliamentary Budget Office in these Houses, that there is an ability to process it. It is a very a big area and we should continue to look strongly at it.