Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

I do not know why the Deputy went there. I was just saying I am very happy to provide him with the information he requested, which I did, and to outline the rationale for my position on his proposal, as I did. I tried to do so briefly because I think the argument I made is a clear one. I furthermore stated my view that putting a requirement in legislation is not the right way to get reports. I thought I gave a positive answer to the Deputy's queries. I know he knows the difference between an amendment and a report.

7 o’clock

I assure the Deputy I do too. I was making the point that, if the Deputy wants this information, as I know he does, I will give it to him directly and that there is no need to do it through an amendment. The Deputy can still put an amendment down if he so wishes but there are other ways we can do it and I am happy to do so.

On the point the Deputy made regarding volatility, I know only too well that, as the Deputy has acknowledged, different revenue streams can be volatile. It is fair to make the point that there are different levels of volatility associated with different tax revenues. The revenue that comes from taxes on assets, things people own, tends to be more stable than revenue collected on things that can change very quickly, like profit. That is the only point I was making. If there was something in my tone or in the way I put my answer to the Deputy that caused him offence, I am sure he will tell me exactly what I did in a moment. All I am trying to do is to be helpful.

See this speech in context