Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

When I heard that Deputy Boyd Barrett was sponsoring a motion on multinationals, I instinctively thought I could not live with it comfortably. However, having read its text and having noted its moderate tone, I must admit I find it pretty palatable and reasonable. I do not understand why the Government cannot accept it because really, if one considers it in its raw form and strips out much of the verbiage in it, it is a requirement more for transparency than for anything else.

Multinationals have a highly chequered history in Ireland. They came here, were very unwelcome and became hate figures in certain circles. They were looked upon as exploiting Irish wealth, riches and assets while taking those assets and profits overseas and leaving a minimum here, or basically pillaging the country for profits overseas. They were also perceived as being particularly anti-trade union and not taking on unionised staff.

To this day that remains the model of multinationals. The model of our native industry is very different, with one or two exceptions. There was a clash of cultures which existed here for a long time, but that obviously developed over a period as the multinationals came in and gave an enormous amount of employment to native Irish people who were happy to accept that employment. In some cases they were extraordinarily well paid. They were extremely content and very productive in their work, but they lived in a different world from those who, for instance, worked for semi-State companies. That does not mean that one is necessarily any better than the other, but it meant that we have in our midst after a period of time - encouraged by successive governments - embedded in the economy a different type of culture from which it would be difficult to disengage.

We had to accept them and, indeed, I suppose an indication of that was that when multinationals did withdraw, whole communities were destroyed. Employment in towns and villages was decimated and they left a hole which in certain instances has never been filled. They are here to stay under certain circumstances and conditions, and although they are here to stay and are welcome, they are super strong - maybe too strong in terms of economic muscle. We may not love them but we have to accept them. The question that now has to be asked, and Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and others are asking it, is whether Ireland has become more a tax vehicle for multinationals rather than a home for production or anything else.

The indications are that, whereas they are doing an enormous amount of good in giving employment, in making profits and all the spin-off effects, in certain high profile cases they are using Ireland more as a tax vehicle than for anything else. Everybody is familiar with the issue of Apple. Everybody is also familiar with the issue of the double Irish, which the Minister quite rightly abolished last year. Despite this, there are figures that really are quite staggering. I will point out one, for instance, from last year involving Microsoft. These are 2014 figures which I have picked out simply to illustrate the case. That company's cost of sales for the year was €2.8 billion, while administrative expenses were €17.9 billion in Ireland. That is simply ridiculous. I am quoting from The Irish Timeswhich asked a question about it. It said that these administrative figures are most likely royalty and other intellectual property payments made to other Microsoft companies not tax resident in Ireland. I think they are the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

It goes on to say that there is no explanatory note about the expenses in the accounts and a request for a comment on the matter had not been responded to at the time of going to press. An administrative expense of €17.9 billion, which is actually an intellectual property payment or a patent royalty payment, is an artificial tax transaction, nothing else. That means that what they are doing, and everybody knows that this is what they are doing, is buying a bit of intellectual property from Bermuda, paying for it out there, leaving the money out there - it never goes back to America - and taking it out of the Irish economy. It is an artificial tax transaction which is entered into their books as something which it really is not. It is down there to avoid tax.

Let us be absolutely clear that it is not illegal, but it is a source of income which we should be looking at as potentially one in which we should have a large share. I think the motion is wrong in saying that they should give the Revenue Commissioners powers to do this. If there is tax avoidance going on, the Revenue Commissioners have the power to challenge it. The question is why they are not using it.

See this speech in context