Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I want to speak specifically to the amendment and not get back into the debate about whether the banks should be allowed to bring forward their tax losses as tax credits. The Minister's counter argument on Committee Stage was that it was a difficult thing to do. The Minister was concerned about changing normal business practice and he argued that his normal way of doing it was to bring in the levy. The Minister felt it was a quid pro quo. Regardless of whether the losses should be brought forward or how many it is reasonable to bring forward, it is definitely an issue the public would have a view on. It is complicated and technical, as evidenced by the debate on Committee Stage. As Deputy Joan Burton pointed out, because the public bailed these banks out, simply saying this is normal business practice and these are normal trading businesses, therefore, they should enjoy this but that we have applied a levy to at least address it a little is not sufficient for the public. I believe that a report, which is accessible to people who might not have the time to spend on the issue, or who do not have accounting and finance backgrounds, would be a reasonable one for the public to get. Being specific to the amendment, and without prejudice to what is the right answer - there are different views in the House as to what the right answer is - a well written report could lay out the options, including the Minister for Finance's rationale, to explain that bringing the losses forward means the banks do not pay X amount of millions in a given year, how the banking levy goes 20%, 75% or 100% of the way there and showing the two or three options. The bank bailouts have been such a defining part of what has happened over the past number of years, and because every man, woman and child in the State is directly affected, I believe that the amendment is reasonable on the basis that the public has a right to know. This debate probably, and properly, belongs as a wider House debate, which would be greatly facilitated by the report. I ask the Minister for Finance to consider, without prejudice to what the answer might be, that it is reasonable for him, as a member of the Executive, to provide to the House and the public, a report that lays out the options, his rationale and the other positions that have been tabled in the House. For that reason, I urge the Minister for Finance to accept the amendment tonight and to allow the report to be compiled. It is a real issue and while there are politics at play, the amounts of money are big enough and the substantive issue is big enough that it merits expert, neutral investigation in a report back to the House.

See this speech in context