David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is appreciated. I offer my apologies; I wished to contribute during Private Members' business.

The delegates are most welcome and it is very interesting to hear what they have to say. As they can imagine, I come at this issue from a slightly different perspective. Although they were delighted at the change in name of the Department, I was concerned by it because I could see a recalibration in the direction of trade rather than human rights. It is very important that we keep human rights to the fore. As for returning to the markets, off with everyone, as I do not believe they will last that long. Ultimately, it is likely that within 50 years capitalism will be banjaxed and I hope that will be the case. Of course, we are going to re-enter the markets. We are being patted on the back by the troika and all kinds of people. Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble visited Ireland to tell us how well we were doing and that we were an example to be pointed to. Yes, that is so - at the price of evictions and having soup kitchens. Did I ever think, as an Irishman, that I would see day when we would again have in this country soup kitchens and evictions, just as we are about to celebrate 100 years of our glorious struggle for freedom? There is, however, a contrary view.

Life is very complex, even in a business sense. I have dipped my toe in the water of business, successfully enough, but for reasons other than commercial. It is fascinating and one gets a great kick out of it because it is like a game, something wonderful like Monopoly. However, I point to its two-sided nature. Patents running out is a problem for Ireland in one sense, although in another it is good for us. On the one hand, we bemoan the fact that patents are running out, while, on the other, we push as hard as we can to ensure they run out for the big pharmaceutical companies in order that we can have generic drugs and reduce the cost to the health service. There is a very curious and interesting balance.

I have two questions. I am delighted to hear Terminal 2 is doing so well, although when I was in it last week, it was virtually empty. It is, however, a beautiful building. To me, it is almost a symbol of the difficulties the country faces - a stunning and wonderful building for an anticipated market that has not materialised and may not do so, although I hope it does.

My first question is on human rights. China and low-hanging fruit have been mentioned. Again, this is fascinating. What an irony it is, however, that it is the Lamborghinis and Bentleys of this world which are picking the low-hanging fruit in what is still supposed to be a Communist country. There is a wonderful refreshing irony, but I wonder about it. One might consider what has happened in Tibet, for example, and the recent considerable increase in the number of Tibetan Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire and killed themselves. At what stage, if ever, do human rights enter the equation? I do not imagine this question is asked very often by the delegates and I do not blame them for this, but is there any point at which human rights enter the equation? Perhaps there is not.

My second question concerns the corporation tax rate of 12.5%. Mr. Whelan has mentioned that his organisation was involved in creating this tax in 1951. I have always been a little worried about it because it seemed fragile and represented something artificial, something that would lead to situations where companies would have an office with a nameplate in the International Financial Services Centre through which profits would be manoeuvred and accounted for tax purposes. I am delighted if the country can make money out of it, but I wonder if there is an exit strategy, just in case the measure comes unstuck. I do not believe, however, that it will as a result of a direct attack, in a political sense, by France, Germany and the Dutch. It is far more likely to come under attack because people have now woken up, for example, to Starbucks. There is a big stink about Starbucks which has made a vast profit on which it has paid no tax whatsoever because it has a deal with the Dutch. We should note the hypocrisy. The Dutch are the ones who want to screw to the wall the Greeks - and us - while they are fiddling as hard as they can. They can make a profit out of this by recycling and money laundering, which basically is what is going on. It is the same with the French. They are no longer after us but chasing Facebook and Google for their profits.

I reiterate my two questions. It will not surprise nor shock me if the delegates tell me there is no point at which human rights will ever enter the equation but I ask the question in any case.

My second question relates to whether our guests have an exit strategy. I am not advocating that we get rid of the 12.5% rate, particularly as it is of advantage to the country. However, there is a difficulty. Any problem which arises may not come from the obvious sources.