Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

While I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue, we need to be clear as to where responsibility for it rests. The decision on whether Ireland should seek a review of the Commission's decision by invoking Article 263 of the European treaty is one to be made by the Cabinet. There are certain responsibilities that are for the Houses of the Oireachtas and there are others that are for the Executive. Since the last general election, fortunately, the House has regained some of its powers. No longer can a Cabinet Government dictate what legislation should be passed by a rubber-stamping process here. However, the fact that the Oireachtas has regained its powers should not result in a weak Government that shies away from its own responsibilities and powers. A decision as to whether Ireland should invoke the Article 263 procedure is in many respects similar to a decision as to whether the State should appeal a decision to the Supreme Court. That is the nature of the decision being made. We should not have a situation whereby the Government runs to get the protection of the Oireachtas because a decision is unpopular or difficult to make. Unfortunately, the Government's attitude to this matter last week was hesitant, weak and uncertain. While I am happy for this debate to take place and while the Dáil should have an opportunity to conduct it, the reason it is taking place is that certain members of the Cabinet were nervous about making what they viewed as an unpopular decision. They wanted the Dáil recalled so that they would have its protection in respect of that unpopular decision.

While this is a decision to be made by the Government, the decision that has been made is the correct one. There are three reasons it is right to seek to review this decision.

First, the Commission states that its ruling "does not call into question Ireland's general tax system or its corporate tax rate". However, it seeks to present the Revenue Commissioners not as an independent body but as another arm of Government that is prepared to facilitate Government policy by giving a decision in favour of certain taxpayers. The Revenue Commissioners do not operate in such a fashion. In many respects, they are like the leaving certificate - not susceptible to interference. Nonetheless, the ruling presents Revenue as an agency of the Executive that is not independent. For this reason, we should get a ruling on the matter from the European court.

Second, the Commission claims that this is not about Ireland's corporate tax rate, yet when the Vice President of the Commission, Mr. Joaquín Almunia, launched the three investigations in June 2014 in respect of three multinational companies in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Ireland, his first statement was: "In the current context of tight public budgets, it is particularly important that large multinationals pay their fair share of taxes." Every Deputy agrees with that, but he cannot seek to use the EU's competition directorate and state aid rules as a battering ram to get into an area where the Commission does not have jurisdiction, namely, corporate tax.

Let us think about this. Ireland is being presented abroad as being in some respect a tax haven for multinationals that only avail of Ireland for the purpose of having a plate on a wall. That is an insult to the 180,000 people who work for multinationals and ignores the fact that 80% of our corporation taxes are paid by multinationals and the fact that 50% of our PAYE and VAT comes from multinationals.

Third, the ruling presents the country as having been involved in illegal State aid for the past 30 years. Let that be reviewed by the European court. It is instructive to note that the Netherlands and Luxembourg have invoked Article 263 to go to the European Court of Justice. I do not know whether they have seen such excited responses in their countries, but one is perfectly entitled to use provisions within the treaty if one wants to test certain rulings.

We must consider the consequences of not seeking to review the ruling. We would be accepting that the Revenue Commissioners had entered into an unlawful arrangement with Apple and Ireland had acted unlawfully for 30 years, acknowledging that certain multinationals got special treatment, informing potential future employers that this was an economy that did not operate a level playing field, allowing the Commission to state before the European court that Ireland had accepted all of its findings, and telling Apple something after saying something else to it for 30 years. Finally - and this is a matter for lawyers - the Commission's ruling is not consistent with the body of European Court of Justice case law. The Commission may win or lose, but there is an arguable case for having the ruling reviewed. We must not allow a case to go before the European Court of Justice that involves Apple and the European Commission, and at the heart of which is the integrity and honesty of the Irish tax system, without our being present. That is not tenable.

See this speech in context