Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge Deputy Boyd Barrett's role in forcing what is a limited discussion, but at least the issue is being partially aired. I agree with his points, in that it is an indictment of our Chamber that this could have happened without any discussion on these serious proposals. We are debating the European Commission's latest attempt to introduce greater transparency in the reporting of multinational corporations. As we have heard, the committee asserts that the proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, which is utter rubbish and would not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

It has been exposed, even by the arguments that have been heard in the House, as a veiled excuse to cover what are in reality very minor baby steps towards delivering some sort of tax transparency and tax justice.

These are enormous issues with considerable implications in Ireland and internationally. I agree with the submissions made by organisations such as Christian Aid stating the proposals do not go far enough. It was ironic to listen to organisations such as IBEC stating they go too far. It even stated the proposals add to what it calls the growing view that the EU is a hostile environment for multinationals. Seriously, it does not need to worry about that at all.

If one were drawing on the subsidiarity argument to give oneself more power to argue that these measures should go further, it would make some sense. That the opposite argument is being made is frightening and regrettable. As Christian Aid has said, it is very difficult to see how these modest proposals will do anything to help developing countries and prevent multinational corporations from shifting their vast profits out of them to avoid paying tax that could be spent on essential services and fulfilling citizens’ rights in those countries. It is a matter of fact that developing countries suffer most as a consequence of corporate tax dodging. Even the IMF has said tax dodging is worth $200 billion annually. This is a staggering figure. This sum could transform the lives of people.

What the proposals describe as "country-by-country reporting" really cannot be called that. It is not actually true because they do not cover every country in which a company might operate. Companies with subsidiaries outside the European Union and those on the list of tax jurisdictions yet to be defined as non-co-operative, namely, the tax havens, will be required only to report on an aggregate basis. That is a fundamental flaw or weakness in the proposal. Placing together jurisdictions to where the profit is likely to be shifted, particularly developing countries and so on, negates the entire point of country-by-country reporting. The policy should have been to shed light on these issues. However, if aggregate reporting is allowed, no light is shed on them.

Another key flaw is that the threshold of reporting is set at €750 million. This is way too high and really means that approximately 90% of multinationals will be excluded from the proposal in any case. Therefore, it is an incredibly modest proposal. There are problems with it in that it does not have the ability to deliver sufficient tax transparency or combat the tax dodging that is crucifying developing countries.

The contributions from the Government today seem to indicate it is bending the knee to those who would like to see a pretty precarious or dodgy tax-havenish status continue. PricewaterhouseCoopers was very interesting when it referred to the need for enterprises to consider carefully their response to future transparency, particularly country-by country reporting and the way it reflects on the allocation of results across the value chain. No doubt, PricewaterhouseCoopers will be available to advise.

When we talk about tax avoidance in Ireland, we tend to focus on multinational corporations. I acknowledge the disgusting role of organisations such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte, which operate on the basis of being one step ahead in facilitating the multinationals in avoiding tax at every turn. Their large headquarters are here not because they like the weather or because they are doing the accounts for the newsagent but because they want to facilitate the continuance of what has prevailed here. It is disgusting. To try to make us special in Europe for these reasons is abhorrent when we do not achieve this by being best-case advocates for refugees, for example.

See this speech in context