We have come through the Finance Bill process but some outstanding issues need to be further addressed if we are concerned about our reputation. We know how sensitive we are when somebody suggests that we are a tax haven. However, there are examples of each positive step that we have taken being accompanied by a negative one. For example, it is positive that there was an independent review of Ireland's corporate code, a public consultation, engagement, recommendations and further consultation. That was all part of the bigger picture relating to the EU's anti-tax avoidance directive and the new controlled foreign companies, CFC, rules but, on the other side, there were two options for Ireland to take in implementing the CFC rules. There was model A, which most European countries chose, as it would ensure optimum effectiveness, or model B, which Ireland chose and was one of the few European countries to do so. However, model B is reckoned to do little, if anything, to address corporate tax avoidance. It simply applies guidelines which we are supposed to do anyway under current legislation on transfer pricing.

There is another positive regarding corporate tax residence rules, which is the shutting down of what was known as the double Irish. Why was that not done straightaway? Why are we waiting until 2021? Why was there a lead-in of ten weeks, which allows multinationals to set up a double Irish structure to use until 2021?

It is also positive that we were one of 24 jurisdictions deemed to have been fully compliant on tax transparency and exchange of information by the global tax forum but, while Ireland requires countries to report tax information on a country-by-country basis, the information remains confidential. If it were public where countries are making profits and paying their tax, that data would show where tax reform is needed to ensure fairness.

Another positive is that we undertook the spillover analysis but it only examined 6% of transfers so the analysis was not comprehensive. Will a second more comprehensive analysis be undertaken on such corporate tax avoidance? If we do not, it will have effects on developing countries, some of which are our partners. We also give aid to some of them.

A further positive is that we agreed to the EU directive for a common mandatory reporting regime for certain tax advisers and companies. We were one of only three EU member states to have a mandatory disclosure regime in place prior to agreement on the directive, but there are questions about its effectiveness because there are so many exemptions to it.

Base erosion and profit shifting was a good first step. We were in a group which signed that multinational instrument at the first opportunity, but we chose not to sign article 12, which is key to ensuring no tax avoidance by multinational companies.

Small steps are being taken, but why are we not taking the big steps that will make a real difference to tax avoidance?

I thank the Deputy for a comprehensive and detailed question. I have read up on these areas but I am no expert. I remember reading in detail about why we opted for model A rather than model B, but it might be best to ask the Minister for Finance to explain that or to give a more detailed answer because I do not remember the exact reasons, although it made sense when I read the memo at the time.

On a more general point, Ireland is a pro-business, pro-trade and pro-enterprise country. It has worked for Ireland and it is one of the reasons we are approaching full employment, incomes are at a record high and we are a relatively prosperous country. Part of our economic and industrial policy is having low corporation profit tax. It is one of the reasons so many multinationals base operations in Ireland, although it is not the only reason. It is also one of the reasons our companies are so successful and are able to grow and expand.

It is very much my firm view that large and small profitable companies should pay their fair share of tax in full, where and when it is owed. Ireland is not a tax haven and nor do we wish to be perceived as one. We have done much work to correct that perception if it has existed in the past couple of years. This has involved phasing out the double Irish, to which the Deputy referred, and getting rid of the whole concept of stateless corporations, which is no longer permitted or at least not in our jurisdiction. It has also involved information exchange, and we were one of the first countries to sign up to that. Our Revenue Commissioners will tell their counterparts in other countries how much tax was paid here in order that we can see whether companies are paying tax in other countries. On the night of the budget, we introduced the exit tax, and in the next couple of weeks we should have a solution to the issue of the single malt.

The Deputy will also be aware that we collected all the moneys the European Commission says are owed by Apple. It has been collected and is being held in an escrow account until the European courts determine who owns it and how it should be apportioned.

I could give some more examples of where we lead with one foot because it is positive but then take it back with the other foot because it is negative. We have chosen to implement the weakest options at the latest available date under the anti-tax avoidance directive, but we could do more. While there is no problem with being pro-business and pro-trade, there must be fairness. I sometimes wonder how much weight is given to the submissions and recommendations from non-governmental organisations, NGOs, such as Oxfam Ireland and Christian Aid, because it is obvious that other organisations carry much greater weight. It is damaging our reputation, and we have a strong reputation in humanitarian work and human rights. To take another example, which is about intellectual property, a figure of €300 billion was moved into Ireland between 2014 and 2017, but did it bring any relief? Was any tax paid on it?

Given the Taoiseach's predecessor, Deputy Enda Kenny, committed to climate justice at one point, will this Government commit to tax justice?

I assure the Deputy we always listen to the views and opinions of NGOs on taxation policy, tax transparency, international development aid or any issue, but it is a mistake to make the NGOs' opinions one's own opinions, which people do sometimes. An NGO will say something, for example, and it becomes a politician's opinion or policy, but the public deserve better than that. While we need to listen to NGOs, we also need to listen to other opinions, whether they are given by independent expert academics who are not part of any campaign, other political parties, business interests or our civil servants. We take all of these factors into account in the round and that is how we determine our policies.