Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)

I thank the Minister for explaining to me the difference between a parliamentary question and an amendment to legislation. I understand the difference but I thank him very much for his generous explanation.

This amendment is not a parliamentary question. I am not solely seeking the information the Minister outlined. I am seeking a report on the potential introduction of rate changes in line with the recommendation from the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Minister time and space, namely, six months, to consider whether he wants to back the introduction of differential rates. I appreciate his providing the statistical information but the purpose of my amendment is not simply to get that information but, rather, to obtain a broader report on whether he would want to make the proposed changes, and to give him six months to consider it.

I thank the Minister for giving his rationale as to why he does not want to make the change I am proposing, which is that he does not want to introduce something that might broaden the tax base because of the potential volatility it might cause in that income stream. Does that explanation mean he will now look at the entire tax code and, everywhere there is potential volatility, he will seek to remove it? Unfortunately, there is potential volatility across all the different income streams within the tax code. That can happen across the board. At the budgetary oversight committee yesterday, we discussed the massive potential volatility in respect of corporation tax receipts, which is much greater than ever will be the case in terms of what I am proposing here. With respect, I do not accept his argument as a good rationale for not broadening the tax base or at least considering it, as recommended by the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. Volatility is in the nature of taxation and expenditure. The Minister understands that very well in his current role.

See this speech in context