We use Google Analytics to see which pages are read and how the site is used, so we know what to improve. This only runs if you accept. See our privacy notice for details.

Dáil
‹ Order of Business

Corporate tax reporting directive scheduling

Summary

Richard Boyd Barrett welcomed changes to the proposed handling of a corporate tax reporting directive but stressed that the Dáil should know when the significant matter would be decided; the revised business arrangements were agreed.

It is important to highlight the fact that the proposals for the Order of Business were changed an hour or two ago from those we had originally received. The changes relate to a correct decision made by the Government which had been prompted by a telephone call made by me to the Chief Whip’s office, about an original proposal to have a European directive on country by country reporting on corporate tax requirements transposed into Irish law and the decision by the Standing Order 112 Select Committee on subsidiarity for the Dáil to vote on it today without debate. This is an important matter to do with dealing with corporate tax evasion and a recommendation of the select committee that we not debate it. I am glad that the Government conceded, on foot of the representations made by me, to a debate on it tomorrow. However, the House needs to know that this important issue was not going to be debated. Everyone needs to understand how significant it is because we are dealing with the controversial and significant issue of country-by-country reporting and attempts by the European Commission to deal with corporate tax evasion.

Comment on this

We cannot get into a debate on the issue, but, thankfully, the Government appears to have responded to the Deputy’s request.

Comment on this

It is welcome that it has. However, it was only because representations had been made. Deputies need to know that a subject of great significance will be decided on by the Dáil tomorrow.

Comment on this

Is the proposal for dealing with No. 10 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 12, motion re Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998, and No. 13, motion re Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Private Members’ business agreed to? Agreed.

Comment on this