Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

-----and crippled the country in 2011.

I am confident that the Irish people understand the realities behind this decision. I have spoken to many of them in the last week. As I said, the easy thing for my party to do would be to take the populist line but it would not be the right thing and it would not be in the long-term interest of our people. If one looks back over the decades of the existence of my party, more than 100 years, one will see that we have always done right by our country rather than always putting the interests of our party first, as some consistently do, even if it means prolonging conflict.

It is true that €13 billion, plus interest, is a lot of money but it represents only two years of corporation tax payments or 6% of one year's GDP. The size of the figure has shaped much of the debate because it is, for all of us, a mind-numbingly large figure but there are bigger issues at stake in this debate. The Labour Party did not play a central part in putting this economy back on an even keel over the last five years to play politics with it now. Apple will argue that it arranged its tax affairs in accordance with rules afforded it by our Revenue Commissioners. Make no mistake about it, there are reputational issues at stake here. As a small open economy, hugely dependent on foreign direct investment, FDI, reputational issues are extremely important. Any of us who has been privileged to have been involved in negotiations to attract companies into this country knows that full well. The House should debate these matters rationally. The position of the Irish tax authorities is that these are administrative decisions made by independent and competent authorities rather than political decisions. They have told us that no special or selective arrangement was afforded to Apple. Having known and worked with the Irish Revenue Commissioners for three decades, I for one, accept their word on these matters.

On the face of it, aspects of the European Commission's decision are troubling, as other Deputies have indicated. The Commission seems to want to interpret the law as it is now, as opposed to how it was at the time. There is no obfuscation in terms of saying "that's the way they operate" in the context of how competition rules will apply. No tax system can work on that basis. We could not go to any citizen and say "by the way, we have changed our minds on the tax position that we determined for you 20 years ago and we want all of that tax back, with interest". The Commission wants the Revenue Commissioners to collect taxes on moneys that were not earned in this jurisdiction. It has further issued a call, a come-all-ye call, for others who believe they have a legitimate claim on this money to come knocking on Ireland's door. How can that work for us? How are we supposed to collect or spend money when we do not know the beginning or end of how much of it is actually rightfully ours?

There seems to be a belief that Ireland, a small nation, should carry the reputational hit for correcting what we have all agreed is an issue. We are told that this was an investigation under state aid rules and yet the lion's share of the commentary since the announcement of the Commission's decision has been about taxation levels; the same sort of commentary we have heard for many years on corporation tax policy in Ireland. It is a dishonest charge levelled against us by those who seek to do us harm and those who would be complicit in that actually do Ireland harm. They damage our prospects of continuing to successfully attract investment into this country. The mud that sticks is the mud that is thrown often enough.

The truth is that this State collects higher than average revenue from corporation taxes and implements at a national level an effective tax rate which is higher than that of other countries, with bigger systems of reliefs that do not seem to be the focus of the Commission's overview, a point made effectively by Deputy Micheál Martin with reference to France. As Dan O'Brien and other commentators have pointed out, there is a growing trend in European Commission rulings of finding against smaller countries while ignoring potential breaches elsewhere. That should give every Member of this House pause for thought before automatically rushing to agree with the Commission.

It is interesting that some in this House believe that they are entitled to come with a fixed position but the rest of us are not. They believe that their view is so right that they are entitled to have it but that we are not entitled to our view.

The reality is that Ireland has been an upfront and honest engager in the process established to address the wrongs of excessive international tax practices. I am proud to have been a member of the Government that put an end to the so-called double Irish. Ireland has been uniquely successful in attracting foreign direct investment and our corporate tax levels have been part of that attraction over the last few decades. However, we have moved to compete for FDI on a much broader basis in recent times. FDI, make no mistake about it, remains an important part of our economic and jobs strategies and of the potential well-being of our people.

It is regrettable that the Government has not sought to properly engage with the Opposition on this matter. We have not seen the ruling of the European Commission in all of its detail and yet we are expected to vote on what is one of the most critical matters to come before this House for a very long time. I have sat in this House for quite some time but I cannot recall a situation previously where a Government moved a motion seeking the agreement of the House without at least offering a confidential, detailed briefing to Members. Dropping a physical copy of a briefing note in the post after the close of business yesterday does not amount to proper engagement with the Opposition. There is no excuse for such obfuscation on an issue as important as this. What is more, the Government knows that. This is not a minor procedural matter. Members of this House represent the people of Ireland. If the so-called new politics is to have any meaning, if collective or inclusive decision-making is to be real in any sense, then this side of the House cannot be left without possession of all of the facts that others have received through briefings. Notwithstanding that, as I have said, the Labour Party is proposing an amendment to the motion which is entirely reasonable and should have the support of all Members. In fact, it is so reasonable that the Minister for Finance has acted overnight to give partial effect to one of its proposals.

The first part of our amendment insists on continuing Government support for the BEPs process. In a globalised world - I made this point quietly during Deputy Adams' contribution - we cannot do this alone. We are not going to achieve international tax justice by ourselves.

See this speech in context