Mr. Ronan Hession:

I would not take it at face value. We generally like to get under the bonnet of such figures to have a look at them. It strikes us that one of the differences between 2011 and now is that we now have fiscal rules. If we proposed to reduce taxes while claiming that the buoyancy in the economy meant that such a reduction would pay for itself, ordinarily we would not be allowed to do that under fiscal rules. I reiterate that we have not had a technical engagement with the Commission. We will need to do that to understand the analysis. Perhaps it is not what it appears from our reading of it. If we were to come back to the Commission with our figures, tell it that we were reducing our base for some other reason and argue that it would be cost-neutral overall because it would lead to a bounce in the economy, I am not sure we would be given the discretion to do that. It is an interesting piece of analysis. The part of it dealing with the reduction in the base is certainly consistent with what other commentators like the ESRI and Ernst & Young have said. I am not sure about the buoyancy of results element of it. In the run-up to budgets, my job involves hearing from many people who ask us to make a tax change that they say will pay for itself. When we hear that in the Department, we know it is a common argument that is often made. We like to look at the tax element on its own. Under the fiscal rules, there is a discipline around us having to do that. I think we will have to engage. I am not going to dispute it or dismiss it. In fairness to the Commission, it has done the analysis and we should try to understand its perspective in the first instance.