John Brassil (Kerry, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. Listening to the various opinions expressed all day, it is very easy to lose sight of the fundamental issue, which is that the EU competition authority has found against Ireland and claimed we provided illegal state aid to one company, namely, Apple. Regardless of how much is at stake, we have no option but to appeal the decision for the benefit of present and future foreign direct investment in this country. I remind the House that Neelie Kroes, the former EU Competition Commissioner came out very strongly against the decision of her successor in stating:

You cannot change the rules of the game through ad hoc state aid enforcement, and then seek retroactive recovery for unpaid taxes.

Doing so would be fundamentally unfair and would harm competition, growth and tax income in Europe. And it raises serious questions about legal certainty and the rule of law.

I think we should take note of that.

The second issue I wish to raise is to question whether this money is real. Despite everything I have heard, I have heard no argument so far that convinces me that one cent of this money will stay in this country. How can anyone expect taxes generated on sales in another jurisdiction to be collected in Ireland? I cannot understand it and I cannot understand the ruling.

As mentioned by numerous speakers, I wish to talk about the interest on the money to go into the escrow account. Even at the paltry rates available at the moment of 0.5% to 1%, a sum of €13 billion would raise approximately €100 million a year in interest. If this appeal takes six years, it would be a substantial amount of money. The Minister has a duty to negotiate with Apple and some of that money might get into our coffers.

Throughout the debate there seems to have been a them-and-us attitude, particularly from my colleagues on the left. There is an opinion that supporting Apple or any multinational is somehow a bad thing and goes against the PAYE worker, the self-employed or SMEs. I argue the opposite. We need Apple and we need multinationals. We need the 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 jobs that those companies create and through them generate the type of tax we need to provide public services such as education, health care and social welfare. To me it is not a case of them and us. By supporting Apple and appealing the decision, we are also supporting the workers and supporting the country. We need to provide certainty. We need a country in which foreign direct investment will continue to flourish. For that reason, I support the motion.

See this speech in context