Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. It is very important that we clarify for the record that the decision to which he refers was made by the previous Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. As a member of the current Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach I would say that no decision has been made by the committee because no opportunity for a decision has been provided to it. As the Minister of State has said, the current committee was not formed at the time this Bill was placed on the Order Paper. The committee was formed in the week in which this Bill was brought to the Chamber. Therefore, the Government would have had an opportunity, if it so wished, to seek to bring the Bill to the point of pre-legislative scrutiny.

I note that when legislation has been brought forward by the Opposition and wider concerns have been raised, it has been a common practice for a request to be put to the relevant committee for the issue to be scrutinised further before the Bill proceeds from Second Stage to Committee Stage. When I look around the House, I recognise people who have experienced this when it has happened in the past. Of course it is the prerogative of the committee, but there is nothing to preclude the Minister of State from requesting the committee to examine issues around the Bill in the interim between Committee Stage and Report Stage. I suggest to the Minister of State that this would be advisable. As has been said earlier, this is not simply about making sure we are technically within the boxes; it is also about proper process being seen to be done. It is not just about whether we are confident it was done; it is also about it being seen to be done. There is a huge issue of confidence in the public mind specifically around the area of financial services following some of the decisions made in the past regarding the bailout. It is very important that there is public confidence in people seeing their concerns fully and properly addressed and, while everybody is entitled to lobby, that there is not a perception of lobbyists being in direct conversation with the Government, or of other conversations with public representatives being in any way short-circuited.

Perhaps the Minister of State did not get the opportunity to address it in his first response but I respectfully suggest that because the circumstances have changed, there needs to be a period of reflection and engagement with the joint committee and others on a cross-party basis between Committee Stage and Report Stage of this Bill. This point was made by my colleague, Senator Gavan. It is a concern especially in the context of this Bill, which was championed by a particular lobbying body that now has working for it a former Minister of State who would previously have engaged with that body. This concern needs to be seen to be addressed and reflected upon in an appropriate way.

The Minister of State did not have the opportunity to clarify the extent to which there has been prior consideration of the issue of base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS. My amendment calls for a report within 12 months of the passing of the Bill. I note there are those who suggest I should be looking to a report and perhaps even a review and expiry of the measures at some stage. Perhaps 12 months might be too soon to assess fully the impact these measures will have. The Minister of State mentioned a roadmap on corporation tax that we are due to have. Will the Minister of State commit, or assure us, that he will not proceed to Report Stage of this Bill before we have the roadmap on corporation tax ahead of us? That would be a really appropriate gesture of compromise and reflection.

I remind the House that €240 billion is lost every year as a result of BEPS. There are 15 key actions that Governments are required to take. Country-by-country reporting, which is action No. 13 under the BEPS framework, is one of the key issues. The Minister of State might indicate where Ireland is on action No. 13 - country-by-country reporting - because it is a crucial issue.

There is also the question of the Revenue Commissioners. My other amendments on the Revenue Commissioners later in this Bill have been ruled out of order because they would potentially represent a charge on companies. This is strange because it is also a possible benefit for the State. There is a very real concern around any measure that might be seen to hollow out revenue for the State at a very critical time. I wonder how we will be able to measure or assess the impact of these measures in revenue terms. Will the corporation tax roadmap assist us and, if so, can we delay Report Stage of the Bill until after that roadmap?

I note there has been a massive increase in investment limited partnerships. Section 110, a previous scheme, was used by a lot of investment companies. There was a big shift in where investment limited partnerships were happening in the UK and in other places when measures narrowed that scheme. It seems to be channelled, or somehow linked, into the pressures around this Bill and I am also concerned about this. Will this legislation be like section 110 insofar as we flag a potential concern and then flag it happening, and then years after the horse has bolted we discover there was a problem? The capital gains tax waiver, for example, was signalled by many of us as a real concern early down the line with regard to its exploitation by investment funds. That was recognised by the Government but possibly two years too late. We are just trying to get ahead of things again.

I would appreciate it if the Minister of State would clarify those few questions. What are his intentions around reflection or engagement between Committee Stage and Report Stage? What consideration, if any, of the OECD actions was taken in relation to the Bill and the drafting of the Bill? Will the Minister of State clarify the corporation tax roadmap and how he sees this Bill reflecting or relating to that?