Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this motion. No one was surprised by the Commission's announcement last week. Given the preceding announcements concerning Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, it was likely that a similar announcement was going to be made last week. Many of us were surprised by the scale of the figures involved, though.

It is important to remember that, in 2011 after the previous Dáil was formed, we needed to establish a special committee to examine the common consolidated corporate tax issue that the Commission was pushing. It wanted a common tax rate for corporations across Europe.

That agenda is still there. When the announcement was made, it did not come as a surprise to many. In fairness, during the discussions for the programme for Government, the issue of the tax liabilities of multinational companies came up. The programme stated under the heading, Tax Reforms to Keep Ireland Competitive:

We will maintain Ireland’s 12.5% corporation tax, and engage constructively with any measures to work towards international tax reform while critically analysing proposals that may not be in Ireland’s long term interests. We will work with our international partners in tackling aggressive international tax planning through the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, initiative.

That is a clear commitment from the Government to ensure everyone pays their fair share of tax, whether a multinational corporation, an Irish business or an individual taxpayer.

What was surprising about the Commission’s decision was that it claimed Ireland acted illegally. In that regard, it is important to point out that tax law is decided by Dáil Éireann, effectively by the people through the Dáil, not by the European Commission. I was surprised by the Commission’s announcement to retrospectively apply today’s rules, to go back over the past 25 years, claiming it was state aid. What I found bizarre was that while the Commission claimed this was state aid provided to Apple, it then stated the money should be put into a separate account so that other EU member states and the United States could lay claim to that money. If it was state aid from Ireland, why then have other EU countries the opportunity to access it? Why then must we put it in abeyance in a separate bank account on which they can make a claim?

The day after the Commission’s announcement, a Commission official stated that not only could we use the money straight away, but that we could break the EU agreement in place and, instead of actually using the money to pay off our national debt, we could use it for other purposes. The Commission has given several contradictory statements both in its official communication and side briefing.

The only way to clarify this is to have a clear court ruling. No one argues with the fact that multinational companies should pay their fair share of tax and we should close off any anomalies in this regard. However, there are those who argue we should spend this €13 billion. Many of them are opposed, or at least lukewarm, to the 12.5% corporate tax rate. It is important to remember this is not our money. We have collected all taxes due from this particular company and other multinationals based here. That was acknowledged by the Commission when it said there are other countries which could make that claim. Essentially, it is like finding a wallet with €1,000 in it on O’Connell Street in Dublin and phoning the contact number in it. The owner says they are at Dublin Airport and will be out of the country for two weeks and they ask us to hold on to it until then as the money is to pay the ESB and telephone bills, as well as the mortgage. However, we go and spend it all in Arnotts instead. That is effectively what we are being asked to do by those who want to spend the Apple money. We cannot spend money that is not ours.

However, if the money is paid over, there is an opportunity to lodge it in an account and use the interest off it. Like with the Dormant Account Fund, it could be used to target communities across the country which have seen a devastating impact from the recession. These communities could be supported by one-off grants from using that particular asset while it is on deposit.

See this speech in context