Professor Niamh Moloney:

I will start by answering the Deputy's question but my colleagues, Mr. Kermode and Dr. Roantree, might also wish to respond. The Deputy makes a really important point about tax expenditures. We looked at this in two respects across the report. We have a specific chapter on tax expenditures and we highlight the absolute importance of data. Tax expenditures are put in place for a reason, as the Deputy said. It is critically important that we understand not just that they are used, because the fact they are used does not necessarily mean they are achieving the objective that was set, but also how they are used. We need data on that. We also need sunset clauses so that there is a compulsory review of tax expenditures.

It is critically important to put these in place. Equally, before the fact, a deep market failure analysis should be done. Tax expenditures narrow the base and the more they are there, the more they are going to destabilise the base from which our revenues are drawn.

Turning to the question about the particular kinds of tax expenditures, one of the issues we found across our report was that we would have liked to have had more data. We would have liked more data, for example, on CGT and capital acquisitions tax, CAT, and how they work, as well as more data on the principal private property tax and on the pensions provision. Our terms of reference asked us to specifically examine the process around tax expenditures. We did a stand-back, system-based review, rather than looking at particular tax expenditures. Our recommendations, therefore, really go to the process and the system. At various points where there is relevance to the tax head in question, we look at how the base could be stabilised and broadened by considering specific reliefs and how they operate. One principle that probably cuts across the report, and we mention this point in one or two places, is that unlimited tax expenditures are problematic. We call this out. Perhaps Mr. Kermode would like to comment.