Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

As soon as the Apple judgment was announced, we in Labour called for statements and a debate in this House on this very important matter. The position is now final but it is disappointing we do not have enough time to debate this very important issue and the ramifications of it. In summary, the ECJ has found that a tax advantage provided to Apple by way of the 1991 and separate 2007 rulings by Revenue was an illegal State aid. Up to €14 billion is to be recovered from the beneficiary. Labour is proud of the role it played in, for example, closing off the double Irish arrangement. Thanks to this move and global corporation tax reforms under way, such forms of tax planning have been consigned to the past but we have to be very vigilant in respect of forms of aggressive tax planning that may be emerging. It is clear to us why the sovereign State was joined in the case. We have an obligation to see and deal with the world as it is, not how it ought to be and how we would like it to be. I am not making a value judgment but in the world of realpolitik, it would have been inconceivable that Ireland would not be interested in a case where matters of national sovereignty were being considered.

However, questions remain for the Government. This case came to the attention of the Commission in 2013. It arose only because of an admission made by Apple at a hearing on Capitol Hill. Is the Minister clear that the Apple case, from an Irish perspective, is unique? We know the Commission is not examining any other state aid cases currently. Can he unequivocally guarantee the House that no deals similar to Apple's were signed off by Revenue in the 1990s and 2000s? Has he asked the Revenue Commissioners explicitly to do a trawl and provide him with a detailed report? It is important that he put the position on the record of the House this afternoon. In addition, it would be hard to accept that this kind of arrangement was unique in Europe. Has the Minister asked the Commission if larger EU states have provided illegal state aid to firms and how it plans to investigate and respond to that? It would be naive in the extreme of us in this country to think that Ireland is the only and original sinner.

Labour was first out of the traps to call publicly for Ireland to sign up to global corporation tax reform. We were hammered. Personally, I was hammered in this Chamber and elsewhere by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, for not donning the green jersey. We were hammered too by Sinn Féin whose members said we did not speak for them so I will not take any lectures from Sinn Féin on corporation tax and tax justice. True to form, the tack its members took was to wade into this Government, which they said, was not doing enough to protect Ireland's 12.5% corporation tax rate. Sinn Féin members like the idea of defending tax sovereignty but only when it suits their often hollow arguments. That really was some position to take for a party that claims to be of the left. It is the kind of inconsistency that is wearing thin and is really causing the shine to come off Sinn Féin. We wanted to sign up to ensure tax justice and certainty for investors with an agreed international minimum effective rate of 15% and to enhance Ireland's reputation, which was in the crosshairs. It was the right and ethical thing to do. The 12.5% corporation tax does not an industrial strategy make and since the ending of the double Irish and Ireland's signing up to global corporation tax reforms, the corporation tax yield to the Exchequer speaks for itself. Let me be clear: tax avoidance and evasion of any description is unacceptable. Somebody somewhere also pays the price for that. It is immoral and it is unethical. Labour has long called for a standing commission on taxation to study emerging trends, case law judgments, potential loopholes and other developments to ensure regulation on tax law stays ahead of creative accounting practices. Labour is also supportive of the new UN framework convention on international tax co-operation and an EU-wide wealth tax.

The Apple tax money is a genuine windfall. The fact is this money was only ever going to become available after the culmination of what was always going to be a lengthy judicial process at EU level. Whether states such as ours joined proceedings or not, the company was always going to challenge judgments at every turn. It would be naive and churlish to assume otherwise. However, what has stunned me is the rabbit-in-the-headlights response by the Government, first, on the judgment itself and second, on what to do with the money. The Government was ill-prepared for a judgment that could only have gone one of two ways and true to form, we have no clear plan on how to invest this money in Ireland's future.

This money must be wisely deployed to provide housing and critical infrastructure. It can help transform Ireland socially, economically and from a climate point of view. It can give us the chance to finally end the boom and bust in housing. We could, for example, as I said last week, fund a State construction company, with at least half of the available money used for new construction over years as well as land acquisition and services provision, for example. We could allocate an additional €500 million a year over five years for a genuine, street-by-street home retrofitting campaign.

We could direct the purchase of equity stakes in offshore wind developments to ensure these are advanced as quickly as possible to bring down Ireland's third highest energy bills and to allow the State and Irish firms to profit from Ireland being a net exporter of energy. We could transform public transport in this country, too. We could invest in expanding metro, BusConnects, the Luas and rail, and invest in water infrastructure and electricity grid expansion and improvement, which the multinational corporations that are here want and which citizens want as well. We could make this rich country that feels so poor ready for a better and fairer future.

The caution of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil on public investment, however, at a time of great wealth in this country, means the Government cannot be trusted to deploy this windfall sensibly. They must, then, leave it to the next Government, with a new mandate, to decide on how best to deploy the Apple windfall tax money.

See this speech in context