Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

A number of concerns have been raised today and I will not reiterate all of them. I will build on the point of the last speaker. He is correct in saying the arrangement between Ireland and Apple is not simply a matter between Ireland and Apple. This is a key point. The arrangement we hear of is likely not only to have deprived citizens in Ireland of much-needed resources but also citizens across Europe and the world. The €13 billion may not be directed to Ireland but it is, none the less, €13 billion that was not paid in tax and revenue.

Apple's use of a stateless entity, notionally located in Ireland, results in countries not only in Europe but also the Middle East, India and, to a lesser extent, Africa seeing the profits generated in their regions channelled away from their local tax authorities into Apple Sales International in Ireland. Until the European Commission's ruling is publicly available — we may need to return to this issue at that time — it will not be possible to know how much the various countries in each of these regions have been deprived of. While the bulk of the profit is likely to have been generated in Europe, even a relatively small amount in an African context has the potential to deprive some of the world’s poorest countries and most vulnerable people of transformative and life-saving resources. In 2011, for example, the entire health budget of Sierra Leone was just under €25 million, a mere 0.21% of the €13 billion that Apple is being asked to repay. This money has a huge, transformative role to play in revenue.

There are serious moral questions attached to this matter for our Government, whose aid programme is rightly lauded across the world as being among the best in the world, and whose recently updated foreign policy places human rights at its centre. Moreover, Ireland played a key role in negotiating the sustainable development goals, SDGs, which are universal goals that should be applied in Ireland and all countries. How, then, can we stand over past or future tax policies that could undermine the ability of developing countries to raise the revenue they need to deliver on SDGs or meet their human rights obligations? If we continue on this path and do not accept the problems we have caused through these practices, irrespective of whether the arrangement was peculiar to Apple, we will risk damage, not only to the other countries affected but also to our international reputation. That is why we need to embrace this issue strongly. We need to accept there are tax justice issues we need to address and place this thinking at the centre of our response to the Apple tax issue.

The Apple case is, of course, not a one-off; it is part of a damaging race to the bottom in which governments are competing across the world in providing multinationals with lower tax bills. This is a recipe for disaster for tax-funded public services across the world. Tax arrangements of both multinationals and governments must be brought into the open. When deals are done behind closed doors, the general public loses out. It is interesting that the Government proposes this very month to sign up to the provisional application of the comprehensive economic trade agreement, CETA, an agreement that will give corporations unprecedented access to and influence over the regulatory process and public policy-making, yet those corporations are still afforded extraordinary secrecy.

Multinationals like Apple must be obliged to publish the country-by-country tax reports that they are already making to governments so that they can be subjected to public scrutiny. To date, the Government has resisted calls to be a voice championing the "publish what you pay, country-by-country" tax report. I ask that Ireland now take a lead on that. Even if Ireland’s tax policy is to be based on competing with other states on lower taxes, the very least it can and should do is insist on the highest level of transparency from multinationals operating in the State. Public country-by-country reporting would be an important step in that direction, and it would restore some faith in Ireland's beleaguered reputation.

The Committee of Public Accounts should also have a role in reviewing the use of previous rulings by multinational companies. These rulings are not currently debated in the Oireachtas, nor are they subject to political oversight outside the office of the Minister for Finance. I ask that the Minister support and facilitate greater oversight and a clear role for the Committee of Public Accounts in regard to these rulings.

The Government has agreed in response to the Apple ruling that it will host a high-level tax conference before the end of this year. I ask the Minister to assure us that there will be a strong tax justice element to the conference. I also ask him to ensure that the independent review of Irish corporation tax policy, which is due to take place, be open to consultation with the public and the Oireachtas. I recognise absolutely that the tax rate of 12.5% will not be part of that review. That is fine but we would restore faith in a rate of 12.5% if it became an effective tax rate of 12.5% and if we took the lead in terms of transparency in other areas.

I wish to point to the concerns raised over tax sovereignty. It is important to note that while we are saying the European Commission has got it wrong and that we have a different position, we should note that the Commission also has a different position on the scope of the provisional application of the CETA because it believes this is entirely an EU competency. It believes the European Commission has sole responsibility. Ireland and other member states have a different view on this. How will we reconcile these views? Why would we sign up to the provisional application of the trade agreement when we have seen what this kind of difference in view or position leads to? Will tax be the only area in which we care about sovereignty or will we be asserting sovereignty in other areas, such as public services, workers rights and environmental provision? In that regard, are we going to wait until the court case in the European Court of Justice before we run ahead and sign on provisional application?