Vol. 517 No. 2
7 Mr. B. O'Shea asked the Minister for Finance his views on the proposals from the EU Commission that taxation matters, as they relate to the Single Market, should be the subject of qualified majority voting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9360/00]
It has long been the policy of the EU Commission to extend the use of qualified majority voting to areas where this procedure does not apply. Suggestions to extend the use of this procedure to the taxation area were raised at previous intergovernmental conferences by the Commission and the proposal has been returned to on this occasion. I refer the Deputy to my earlier answer of 26 January 2000 to a similar question where I indicated that unanimity should be retained for all taxation decisions in the European Union. Ireland does not, therefore, support qualified majority voting in this area.
Does the Minister believe that the Irish position is tenable and is it supported at this stage by other member states? Does he agree that the State aid rules are being operated in a fashion which delimits, reduces or dilutes the veto which member states theoretically have concerning taxation matters?
The Commission, for example, wants to introduce qualified majority voting – there is qualified majority voting in most areas except for sensitive areas such as taxation. The Government position is as I outlined, I am opposed and will continue to be opposed to it. Other mechanisms are being put forward which, if the Government went along with them, would eventually lead to qualified majority voting in taxation by the back door and I am not prepared to go along with that either. A sovereign Government should retain the rights over the taxation of its citizens.
I expressed the view – the Minister will probably agree with me – that relating to competition policy, for example, it is suggested that Ireland is in breach of competition rules by virtue of our corporate taxation regime. We got clearance from the Commission in the relatively recent past on that, but the fact that the suggestion is made implies that our so-called veto is not worth the paper it is written on.
I concur with the Deputy in that I guess there will be further attempts by the Commission in a wide variety of areas to, what I loosely term, circumvent the question of having unanimity in taxation matters. It has long been the view of the Commission that there should be qualified majority voting in all areas and some of the major states would prefer that for obvious and good reasons. It would be very detrimental to small countries such as Ireland. Events of the past ten years in Europe, including Ireland, should encourage Irish policy makers that had there been qualified majority voting in many areas, including taxation, we would not have the economic success we are experiencing. Deputy McDowell and I might disagree on that, but I am certain that would not be the case because a far different regime would be imposed if we had qualified majority voting. Not alone for this Administration but for future Administrations, it is a tenet that should not be very easily given up and I do not foresee a position where an Irish Government would easily forgo it.
Fine Gael is of a similar opinion, it is a non-negotiable principle as far as we are concerned. Has the issue of non-majority voting held up finalisation of green or environmental taxes? Will the Minister give us a short summary of where that issue stands because the clock is ticking on it?
There is a separate question later about environmental taxation, but that also requires unanimity. I have, as I said previously, always adopted a reasonable position in terms of environmental taxation measures enunciated by the Commission, but Spain and Ireland are holding out against some of the proposals. If we were not in politically correct times, I would use a phrase that is used in County Kildare about certain matters, but I will not do so here. Any breach of allowing the principle to be broken would be very detrimental. I understand the Deputy's view and there may be occasions where in some areas we could go along with that, but any breach of unanimity would be detrimental.
