David Norris (Independent)

I thank the Minister of State for the explanation he has provided. I was very interested to learn that one can obtain interest in respect of overpayments. I shall re-examine my tax calculation to discover whether I received such interest. However, that is a very minor point of a personal nature.

Despite his illuminating comments, the Minister of State did not answer one specific question I put to him. As a result, I feel obliged to pose it again. There has been a change of Government policy. In this House last year, the Minister for Finance, another Minister or a Minister of State offered what were obviously compelling arguments to the effect that the two dates we are discussing should be aligned. The record will show that in the debate on last year's Finance Act, arguments were put forward and the House then voted in favour of what was proposed. I am sure that, on the occasion in question, Senators voted on a majority basis because they were convinced by the arguments offered by the Minister or someone acting in his stead.

Something has changed because the Government has decided, as the Minister of State indicated, that there is no difficulty with having different dates. I am not a tax expert, but he maintains that different dates apply in respect of various taxes. I hope there are not too many such dates because that would suggest a certain amount of chaos. However, there may be different dates in certain technical areas, the obscurity of which has removed them from my attention.

The fact remains that a Minister of this Government - from the seat in which the Minister of State is listening to the points we are putting forward - last year offered an argument - which subsequently prevailed - to the effect that it was important, in the context of the well-being of the country's finances, to align the dates. We have now changed one, as a result of argumentation. It does not matter to me who was responsible for having the relevant amendment accepted. I have no doubt the two people to whom the Minister for Finance referred in the Lower House may have had some impact. However, I heard both the representative of IBEC and the woman to whom I referred speaking on the radio. As far as the latter was concerned, it was certainly a question of money and not one of forecasting. Indeed, it was a matter of required payment and being obliged to find the money. It is not the case that one can provide a forecast to the Department of Finance. My forecasts are always accompanied by a cheque. That is the problem. It is a question of money, it is not just a forecast. What has happened has created significant difficulties for a large number of small businesses.

I very much welcome the fact that this change was made in the Lower House. However, my simple question remains unanswered. What principled, philosophical or policy change occurred between last year and this? Is there an explanation to be offered which is based on a coherent approach to the financial strategy of the Government or is it just a case of pragmatism? Was it the case that the scales dropped from the eyes of the Minister for Finance and that, as a result of interventions on the part of various professional bodies, accountants, tax experts, members of IBEC, etc., and on foot of political pressure exerted in the Lower House, he perceived the need to change the position? If the latter was the case, then he was being pragmatic. There is no theoretical support or basis for what was done. We are talking here about a political judgment made in the light of political reality. If the Minister of State could provide an answer to the specific question I have posed, I would be extremely grateful.