Finian McGrath (Dublin Bay North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this very important debate. When this issue arose in recent days, the Independent Alliance had five major objectives in dealing with it. We wanted to achieve certainty for the Irish people on this important and landmark issue. We wanted to get the balance right between tax justice and the hugely important foreign direct investment on which 320,000 families directly rely and on which many SMEs feed. Another very important issue for the Independent Alliance was to reinforce the message that tax evasion or any hint of it is wrong. The fourth matter on which we pushed very strongly was to recall the Dáil so that our colleagues in opposition would have the opportunity to address the matter. The final objective of the Independent Alliance was to review the whole taxation system, in particular in relation to this issue. Most of these issues are covered in the motion. We achieved the recall of the Dáil and also the review.

Let us look closely at the second paragraph of the motion which proposes that the Dáil "commits itself to the highest international standards in transparency in the taxation of the corporate sector". That is what many people want. Paragraph (iii) of the motion proposes that the Dáil "resolves that no company or individual receives preferential tax treatment contrary to the Tax Acts and calls on the Revenue Commissioners to continue to observe this principle".

These are core issues for the Independent Alliance.

On the broader issue, Ireland accepts that there is a problem and I have listened to some of the points made by my Opposition colleagues in that regard. There is a consensus that the international tax system is broken and can only be fixed by deep and meaningful reform. This consensus has led to an unprecedented agreement on the 15 OECD BEPS reports, which represent a comprehensive global response to the problems identified. The core principle underlining this ambitious project is that tax should be paid where the activity takes place. This is a crucial point and aligns with Ireland's long-standing policy of attracting real and substantive operations that bring jobs and investment to this country. Let us say it loud and clear that Ireland is playing a full part in implementing the BEPS reports domestically and at EU level through the anti-tax avoidance directive. The way to tackle difficult problems is through tax policy reforms agreed at international level. State aid, which is a competition tool and not a tax policy one, is an inappropriate mechanism for achieving international tax reform. The European Commission's decision undermines, impedes and conflicts with the global consensus. These are the realities.

This is a landmark issue and we must all be sure of the details before we can progress. Ireland's reputation is important and the appeal is necessary if we are to set out our side of the case. We need a strong legal basis to proceed and we must remove ambiguity in respect of the issue. The appeal is a means of getting a definitive legal decision on the matter. Of course, all companies should pay the taxes they owe. It is important to be clear about what exactly is owed. This is important for sound policy in the future, which is our concern. These situations arise because of a lack of clarity. It behoves us to resolve this issue out now and to reach a conclusion from which we can work. It is not a case of Ireland refusing €13 billion, a point about which there has been much discussion. Apple will appeal the ruling, so the money is frozen in any event. Ireland should take the opportunity to put its side of the case forward. Apart from the question of who owed what money, the Commission has also stated that other countries may claim part of the €13 billion.

Tax evasion is wrong. It is time that we define it clearly. We must lay out our case and be sure of where the fault lay. If legal fault is found, we should follow up on that and identify who or what was responsible.

It is widely recognised that aggressive tax practices are neither sustainable from a tax point of view nor acceptable from a societal point of view.

See this speech in context