Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Nash for his questions. I might try to dispose of his earlier questions quickly and maybe spend more time dealing with his final question. His first group of questions was about where we are with estimated revenue loss. We had to form those judgments regarding revenue loss early in the OECD process. At that point, I believe that it was vital that we plug into our figures and the public debate an expectation that revenues will begin to change. We will only be able to revise those figures when the full detail of how an OECD agreement would work is fully agreed and communicated. We are still some way off that. As further detail comes in, if that detail merits a revision of the figure that I have shared with the Oireachtas, of course I will update those figures and communicate it in the right way to the Government and the Oireachtas.

On the Deputy's final point about a landing zone, before I answer the question, it is important that the committee continues to be aware that any decision that we make is a decision that will carry significant consequences. I will outline two of those consequences for either of the choices that could become available to us. The first is to acknowledge that if we were to go into an agreement and it has a higher rate in it than our current 12.5%, then entering that agreement means a change in the rate. I note that in the current agreement as it is laid down, there simply is not clarity regarding what a future rate could be, since "at least 15%" can clearly mean any figure higher than 15%. I know that the OECD process, as critical as it is, is merely part of the process in which overall change will take place in corporate tax policy in Europe. It is also worth noting that at least being in an agreement carries with it our continued ability to influence corporate tax policy inside the forum within which global decisions are made and has benefits regarding engagement and the influence that we can have in the OECD on issues that are important to us. If and when we get to the right point to make this decision, those are issues that I will want to elaborate on.

If we are not in the agreement, of course it is the case that it gives us the ability and capacity to continue to preserve the figure that is there at the moment. Our rate of 12.5% has, as I have argued in many cases, been a deeply important element in our economic success and development to this point. Alongside preserving our ability to do that, there are three other factors that will require consideration. The first is the most understandable one, which has been the subject of public debate. It is the reputational consequence of being outside an agreement. As Deputy Nash knows, I believe that it is justified to be outside the agreement at the moment. The second is the real possibility, which is different from where we have been before, of the ability of other jurisdictions to form a view that certain revenue streams and levels of profitability are being undertaxed and, in the context of a global accord being in place on these matters, the ability developing in the future to tax that revenue in different ways. Were that to happen, that would also have a potential effect on the stability and revenue that we gain from corporate tax policy.

The final issue relates to the medium-term consequences of being outside an agreement and what that means with regard to our ability to influence the future development of corporate tax policy, especially and vitally within the OECD.

I have shown my willingness to stand by our corporate tax policy and rate at many different points over the past four years and now, with the decision that I have made to be outside the consensus. It is useful to indicate to the committee that in any decision that lies ahead, there are consequences that will be meaningful and potentially very real for our economy, which the Government and I will have to consider if we get to a point in the coming weeks or maybe later in the year of deciding to enter not just the process but the agreement.