Mr. Conor O'Neill:

On flying, sometimes we can speak at cross-purposes here. Mr. Murtagh is right in what he said about the champagne flute shape. Some figures and studies cited in the report might be of interest. One thing that stands out is research from the New Economics Foundation, NEF, in the UK. It has said that in the UK, 15% of people take 70% of all flights and nearly half the population do not fly at all in a given year. The recognition of where we, as a country, including the people in this Chamber, sit in the global distribution of income is sometimes not exactly accurate. The NEF has proposed a levy on frequent flying. This would start at a rate of zero pounds for the first flight, £25 for the second flight, £60 for the third flight, etc., as a way to disincentivise flying and raise some revenue. These measures are important, but they must also be complemented by the type of work Mr. Murtagh and Senator Boylan are talking about. This is because while all the research we have done on tax shows the numbers matter, what is really important is the perception of fairness.

The Cathaoirleach mentioned trying to get popular buy-in to these types of initiatives. The sense of fairness is so important. If something like this can be done on flying, where we might say a normal person would take two, three or four flights annually and this type of tax is levied on those flights, it would be important and effective. It will be less effective, however, if there is a perception, accurate or not, and it is accurate, that a tiny number of people are able to fly as much as they want or that the taxes levied are so insignificant compared with the wealth of people in that tiny bracket. It will not be popularly supported. From the perspective of emissions reductions and revenue raising, the side of the fence the Deputy spoke about really matters, but what Oxfam has focused on also matters in the context of revenue raising, emissions reduction and fairness and public buy-in.