Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Oct 2015

Vol. 891 No. 3

Corporate Tax Policy: Motion [Private Members]

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes:

— the growing international consensus that aggressive tax avoidance and evasion by multinational corporations is now a major contributory factor in the staggering increase in global economic inequality and a spectacular growth in the gap between rich and poor which, according to Oxfam, with current trends, the combined wealth of the richest 1% will overtake that of the other 99% of people in the world;

— that the global trend of increasing economic inequality and growing poverty is echoed in Ireland, where for example, the Think-tank for Action on Social Change, TASC, recently estimated that the wealthiest 10% of the population now own 42.3% of all wealth, whereas the bottom 50% of the population own only 12.2 per cent, and where simultaneously there has been a dramatic increase in deprivation, poverty and homelessness in recent years, such that 750,000 people, including 232,000 children, now live in poverty;

— concern that Ireland’s low corporate tax rate and company regulatory regime do not support adequate accountability from multinational companies operating out of Ireland;

— that the exchange of information between tax jurisdictions is not automatic;

— concern that the recent European Commission investigation into Apple in Ireland revealed a lack of transparency and accountability from Ireland’s Revenue Commissioners to the people of Ireland at that time; and

— that Ireland is part of a network for international corporate tax avoidance and evasion as demonstrated in the so-called ‘LuxLeaks’ scandal and the widely criticised ‘double-Irish’ phenomenon; and

calls on the Government to:

— require full financial transparency from multinational companies in tax matters, making their annual ‘country by country’ financial reports publicly available;

— support automatic information exchange on tax matters between all tax jurisdictions including a non-reciprocal transition period and long-term support for developing countries to comply with requirements;

— establish a public register of the beneficial owners of companies and trusts operating in Ireland;

— close tax loopholes whereby multinational companies may engage in transfer pricing abuse in Ireland and empower the Revenue Commissioner to act to reverse this behaviour;

— move urgently to change Ireland’s corporate tax regime with the aim of ensuring that the corporate and financial sector significantly increase their tax contribution to the Exchequer and to society;

— ensure that, following the decision to close-off the so-called ‘double-Irish’ tax avoidance mechanism, the proposed ‘knowledge box’ does not become another mechanism for large-scale tax avoidance or evasion by multinational corporations; and

— eliminate any aspects of Ireland’s tax regime that facilitate ‘spill-over’ effects in developing countries which deprive those countries of tax revenue that should legitimately accrue to them.

I wish to share time with Deputies Boyd Barrett and Joan Collins, who also have been working on this.

At the core of the Private Members' business tonight and tomorrow night is equality and looking at how the lack of accountable and transparent tax systems create inequality and exacerbate existing inequality. We have a lot of statistics that show that inequality, both in Ireland and globally, is growing. One staggering statistic is that on current trends the richest 1% in the world will own more than 50% of the world's wealth by next year. Equally staggering is the fact that since the financial crisis began, the number of billionaires worldwide has more than doubled. Economic inequality compounds the other inequalities in education and in health. As we cannot discuss and bring about climate change without a commitment to climate justice, we also cannot bring an end to inequality unless we address tax justice.

There are many examples of tax injustice where millions, and in some cases billions, of euro have been lost to countries by the lack of transparency, accountability and good governance, and some of those examples are specifically mentioned in the motion. I refer, for instance, to the LuxLeaks scandal, the sweetheart deals negotiated between the tax administration and multinational corporations, in which companies are frequently represented by one of the four big accounting firms. In early 2015, the Unhappy Meal report showed how McDonald's is using the so-called innovation box in Luxembourg to lower its tax payments. Recently the US Internal Revenue Service challenged the tax arrangements of Coca-Cola, concluding the company owes $3.3 billion in extra tax. Coca-Cola is not accepting this responsibility and the company is expected to challenge this in the US tax court. A report in 2014 showed that although Barclays bank had 14 employees in Luxembourg, it generated £1.4 billion of profits - £100 million per employee. Of course, the whistleblower of the LuxLeaks scandal and the journalist who broke the story face several years in jail.

When it comes to tax, we can look at Ireland's tax scandal also. Ostensibly, the corporate tax rate is 12.5% but we know that is not the reality. For example, accounts filed by companies owned by Cerberus in the Republic show that it paid €10,320 in tax on a combined turnover of €224 million in 2013 and 2014. The reality is that the big multinationals have played countries off against each other for years to ensure they keep low the tax they pay. It is staggering that Apple's annual revenues are approximately 80% of Ireland's GDP, and we are not too sure what else will emerge about Apple. The Government tells us that Ireland is not a tax haven, but we have doubts about that. One journalist stated that the small corner shop in Ireland probably will continue to pay more of its profits in tax than many of the big business.

It is opportune that we are discuss this topic this week in view of the upcoming budget and the OECD base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, report published yesterday. Country-by-country reporting is vital for tax transparency in order that all the multinationals report sales, profits and taxes paid in all jurisdictions in their audited annual reports and tax returns, and these financial reports must be publicly available. Then and only then, if publicly available, will the information be available which would contribute to ending corruption. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of this information being available publicly. Where is Ireland on that?

Allied to that is the automatic exchange of information between tax jurisdictions. I have one question for the Minister which I also asked of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Why did Ireland not support the call for the intergovernmental body on tax under the United Nations, as was called for by NGOs before the financing for development conference in Addis Ababa?

The result of tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax dodging and creative accounting is millions and billions of euro being lost to countries, and we are complicit in that. We think of how much our country is also losing. We think of how many of our problems in health, education and housing could be addressed if we had a fair, just, accountable and transparent tax system.

The issue of corporate tax avoidance, aggressive tax planning or, to put it in more accurate language, wholesale tax evasion by the biggest, wealthiest and most profitable multinationals is the most urgent issue that needs to be addressed in the global economy and for the sake of humanity. The failure of these corporations to pay a fair and reasonable amount of their profits back into society to fund the infrastructure, services and incomes of ordinary citizens through taxation has run alongside and is directly connected to a staggering growth in inequality and an increase in the gap between rich and poor. One cannot separate these two matters. When Oxfam produces a report stating that next year the wealthiest 1% of individuals in the world will have the same amount of wealth and assets as the other 99% of society, that is a stunning, staggering, and hard to comprehend indictment of our economic system. One of the facts with which people are probably familiar is that the 180 richest individuals have more wealth personally than the 48 poorest countries in the world and there is a direct overlap between the wealth of those individuals and the corporations of which they are CEOs. Many of these corporations that are responsible for this incomprehensible concentration of wealth in a few hands are based here and that also is not a coincidence.

I and most of the world are convinced, despite Government denials, that Ireland is at the centre of an international nexus of tax avoidance and tax evasion, the result of which has been a truly stunning concentration of wealth in the hands of these corporations and those who own them at the expense of society in general, in particular the less well-off. The global growth in inequality of wealth is clearly echoed in the figures in a previous motion which we discussed a few months ago and some of which are referred to in the motion under discussion. The estimates we include are the conservative estimates produced by TASC which suggest that the wealthiest 10% of the population in this country has 42% of the wealth, while Credit Suisse estimates that 10% has 58% of the wealth. Whichever is correct, it is shocking inequality. At the same time, poverty and deprivation have increased dramatically such that 750,000 people in this country live in poverty, including 250,000 children. We have the worst housing crisis in the modern history of the State.

I have just come from the Department of Finance pre-budget briefing which was very interesting, but it bears out the same picture. Corporate profits have shot through the roof yet again in recent months.

The increases have been stunning. When we asked the Department of Finance officials if they could explain the enormous jump in corporate tax revenue recorded for the past six months, they could not explain it. It represents a 20% increase in profits, overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of these same multinationals. This is happening at the same time as a chronic lack of investment in public housing and, as a result, homelessness levels going through the roof. We desperately need investment in all sorts of areas of infrastructure and schools. Our water infrastructure is in a state of collapse. Our hospitals have been gutted of money and investment to the tune of billions of euro and our health services are in a state of emergency. This is happening at the same time as corporate profits have gone through the roof, and there is no explanation.

While it is utterly unjust, it is also the explanation for the fragility, vulnerability and crisis-prone nature of the global economy. Although Thomas Piketty and others have pointed this out, it does not seem to be taken on board by the political elites in Europe, the economists, departments of finance or the ECB. They do not seem to comprehend that this level of concentration of wealth is not just unfair but very dangerous. It is a recipe for another crash. I saw a shocking graph which showed the reduction in lending by banks to the European periphery countries, including Ireland, Greece and Portugal, all of which have been in reverse since 2008. At exactly the same time, lending to China had increased in the same proportions. There has been a massive reduction in bank lending to Europe, which is at the back of the economic collapse and the austerity that follows, while all the speculative money moves to China. How can it happen?

It has created a bubble in China, where massive capacity has been built up. However, there is nobody to buy the goods given that everybody else has been hammered with austerity and eventually somebody will realise it is unsustainable, the money will run out of China, the Chinese economy will collapse and further ramifications will hit the entire global economy. Such crazy fluctuations can happen only because of the incredible concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny number of corporate and financial bodies which are accumulating massive profits and exponential profit growth. These groups, accountable to nobody and paying no tax, can create a bubble for a while in an economy and bring it crashing down just as quickly.

This is not just about disgusting inequality and unfairness, whereby people are hammered with tax, austerity and cuts while profits increase and the corporations pay nothing into the infrastructure that sustains them as well as the whole of society. It also creates the crisis-prone character of the entire global economy, which is an accident waiting to happen. While there is a consensus that we must do something about it, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, who has been pushed into it because everybody is screaming about Ireland’s central role in it, says we must not go too far. He is quoted on the front of The Irish Times saying we should not go too far. The base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, project is just a set of guidelines; it is not binding; we are not required to do it. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, is already saying we should not go too far with any of it and denying what successive Governments have done to facilitate this or turn a blind eye.

At our press conference earlier I made a point that I want people to take on board regarding the technical paper produced by the Department of Finance on effective corporate tax rates, about which there is much dispute. While the US says our effective corporate tax rate is 2%, EUROSTAT says it is 6% and the Government says it is 10.9%. While one can mess around with figures, accounting and different calculation methods to obscure the reality, the truth is in the tables produced by the Revenue and published by the Department of Finance. Only last week, when we were preparing the motion, I discovered something that tells the whole story. I cannot believe the Government or Revenue did not notice it and say there was something wrong. I refer to the deductions which allow multinational corporations, primarily, to reduce their taxable profits.

Corporate profits are increasing overall. In 2006, gross trading profits were €72 billion while in 2011 they had increased slightly to €73 billion. They have probably increased a little by now; these are the latest available figures. Why do we not have corporate tax figures for after 2011? Why is there a four or five year lag? In itself, this means there is no transparency. In 2006, the total income, given that there were some allowances, was €59 billion and the deductions were €5 billion. In 2011, the total income was €61 billion, but the deductions had increased to €21 billion. The deductions are mostly related to trade charges, whereby one subsidiary of a multinational charges another subsidiary royalties for the use of patents. One part of the company is taxable here while the other is not, but pays tax in the Cayman Islands or somewhere similar. Such trade charges increased from 10% of total profits in 2006 to 33% in 2011. In other words, the multinationals are saying that whatever they do to increase their profits, they will increase the price they pay to themselves to get the profits off the books of the company that is taxable in Ireland and onto the books of a subsidiary of the company that is not taxable in Ireland. They do it completely arbitrarily.

I cannot believe the Government or Revenue does not look at the figures and say, “Jesus! How did that happen?” How can their deductions treble within a couple of years without anybody saying that something fishy or some sharp accounting practice is going on? Either it is gross incompetence or we turned a blind eye because we knew exactly what was going on and we decided to do nothing about it. None of it brings us to the question of the 12.5%. It is just about enforcing the 12.5% and ensuring the multinationals are not taking the taxpayer, the tax system and Irish society for a ride by playing around with sharp accounting practice in order to write down their taxable profit. At stake are billions of euro that could have gone into housing, infrastructure and health, and we have done nothing about it. When the European Commission finally screamed "foul" and said we had special deals with companies such as Apple, the Government tooled up with lawyers to fight to ensure we did not get some of the money back.

It is not true.

Why does the Government not enforce the European Commission's decision on Apple? Why does it not say we will take the money back, the billions of euro in tax these guys have managed to evade by way of sharp accounting practice? Our society and economy are paying a terrible price for it and it must stop. However, there is no will to do it.

The comments of the Minister, Deputy Noonan, as reported on the front of today's The Irish Times, suggest that although he understands he has to say he wants to see something done about this, he does not want to go too far. The mantra of this Government is that tax competition is a good thing. The tax specialist Richard Murphy, who has done more than any other individual to expose this practice on an international level, told us at a briefing last week that there is no such thing as good tax competition because the taxpayer, the society and the economy always lose when there is a race to the bottom in terms of corporate tax competition. There might be a short-term gain, but the long-term effect is staggering levels of inequality and the concentration of profits and wealth in the hands of multinationals that essentially hold whole Governments and economies hostage. Just as the multinationals have an aggressive policy of avoiding tax, we must have an aggressive policy of making them pay their taxes, which is something they have not been doing in recent times.

I am very pleased to participate in this evening's debate, which is timely following yesterday's release of the OECD report and next week's budget announcement. This debate is about tax justice. It is about inequality and where that inequality is, and whether that can change so that multinationals pay their fair share of tax rather than trying to hide their tax affairs under bushels throughout the world.

I would like to begin by making a point that has to be acknowledged as part of this debate. There must be an acceptance that the so-called aggressive taxation policy of the multinational corporations is possible because it is facilitated by states, governments and tax regimes. There is no disputing that Ireland has played and is playing a role in such facilitation. The Government's official policy of tax competition to draw in foreign direct investment means there is an official policy of facilitating the aggressive taxation policies of multinationals. There can be no equivocation on that.

Nobody should be under any illusions regarding what is actually meant by the aggressive taxation policies of multinational corporations. It means evading tax. The best example of the role Ireland has played as a facilitator of this tax avoidance and evasion is the famous double Irish arrangement, which is being phased out following an international hue and cry from worldwide charities and non-governmental organisations and from public opinion. A famous Irish band is unable to play concerts without seeing protest cards being raised highlighting its tax affairs and where they are going. Significant public pressure has come on world opinion in this regard.

The aggressive use of the double Irish arrangement by large multinationals has enabled them to pay little or no tax on sizeable profits. I will give some examples because such a statement should not be left hanging in thin air. Apple has three companies registered in Ireland. One of these companies, Apple Operations International, managed to channel $30 billion without making a single tax return. In 2011, Google made $12.4 billion in profit and paid just $22 million in tax. Google Ireland is owned by Google Ireland Holdings, which is in turn owned by Motorola Mobility International, which operates from a post office box in Bermuda. This nameplate company bills Google Ireland for certain costs in areas like administration, staff, sales and marketing and royalties. After all of this magic has been performed, the tax bill has more or less disappeared. It has gone. One could not make up the manner in which they are able to do this. I will mention another leading American multinational that is based in Ireland. Intel Ireland is a branch of the Intel International corporation, which is based in the Cayman Islands.

I have no doubt that these companies will use and abuse the proposed knowledge development box to continue to reduce the taxes on their profits. The Minister, Deputy Noonan, has made it clear that the proposed knowledge development box will be a key part of Ireland's continuing competitive advantage in attracting foreign direct investment from foreign multinationals. It has already been hinted by sources in the Department of Finance that the corporation profit tax rate for the knowledge development box will be set at 5%. This is the same rate set by those other European tax havens, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. It seems that the Government is intent on maintaining good company in this area.

Today, I read the submission of the US Chamber of Commerce in Ireland to the consultation process that the Department of Finance has conducted with business interests, including those well-known tax evasion experts, KPMG. The US chamber is certainly not hiding its light behind a bushel in protecting the interests of US multinationals in Ireland. It wants the knowledge development box to have the broadest possible definition of "intellectual property". When one reads its submission, it seems that everything and anything - any sort of activity - should qualify under the rules of the knowledge development box. For example, the US chamber is saying that intellectual property should not be limited to intellectual property that is just patented. The chamber believes that any intellectual property which can be legally protected should also qualify.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, intellectual property does not actually have to be legally protected; it is just that it simply "can be". It wants a form of research and development that takes place outside Ireland but has so-called "strategic oversight" in Ireland. In its view, a company should not be required to legally own the intellectual property; it should simply have the right to use it. It is just incredible that it is looking for such a Pandora's box for the multinationals. We can see from this the myriad ways in which multinational corporations will try to exploit the knowledge development box.

This avoidance and evasion of taxation is a significant contributory factor in global equality and the persistence of poverty on a global scale. It affects poorer countries in particular by denying them the tax income that could be used to provide basic health services, or to give every child the right to a basic education. It is important to state on the record of the Dáil that 13% of children in developing countries have never attended school. The majority of the children in question are young girls. This approach to tax denies developing countries the ability to deal with the 500 million children - one in every three - who do not have access to sanitation and the 400 million children who do not have access to safe water. These two problems - the lack of sanitation and safe water - cause 4,000 children to die every day.

This is what such criminal activity we are discussing leads to in reality. It might be legal, but to my mind it is criminal and this Government is up to its neck in it. People are dying in developing countries. It is clear from the figures that the wealthiest 10% of the population in Ireland own 42.3% of the wealth. In the meantime, the housing crisis is the biggest humanitarian crisis to happen in this countries for decades. We have a major crisis in our health service. Approximately 1,500 children in 700 families are living in emergency accommodation. We have substantial poverty and deprivation rates in this country. Why is that happening? Is the transfer of wealth going in one direction while the bottom 50% of people are losing the means to live? That is what this debate is all about.

I wish to make a final important point. I want to hear the Government's position on this loud and clear. I suggest that country-by-country reporting will not make a difference unless the information is put into the public domain. The belated actions of the OECD, the European Parliament and the EU Commission are happening solely because of public outrage. We need public reporting to keep up the pressure on Governments, the EU and the OECD and to make multinationals aware that their activities in this area will no longer take place behind closed doors and can affect their brands and their profits. It is not good enough to keep this information exclusively in Revenue, in Departments or in national authorities.

Such public pressure is the only thing that will be effective in reining in this criminal activity. The Irish Government should be leading the campaign for transparency, not restricting it.

I am happy to contribute to this debate, and I commend my colleagues on their tabling of this motion. This is a very timely subject ahead of budget 2016 next week and alongside the OECD's BEPS report, which was published recently. It also falls alongside the EU proposal for automatic exchange of tax rulings, all of which represents the biggest change in the global taxation system in 100 years. Will this delayed reaction be enough to tackle the trend of increasing economic inequality both at home and abroad?

At home, we have a love affair with multinational companies, the main agent in global taxation practice and tax avoidance. We provide tax incentives and supports for research and development and send our foreign direct investment missionaries to seek and find potential investors, paying for their journey to Ireland in the hope that they stay long enough to be noticed. Deals were made between Apple and the Revenue Commissioners back as far as the 1980s, effectively representing State aid for the multinational giant. Then we have the competitive corporation tax mantra, which the Government barely enforces, yet wears like a badge of honour and national pride. Of course, that means that companies do not end up paying most of the tax owed, if any at all.

Tax avoidance in Ireland amounts to about €4 billion in lost tax revenue. I can think of many social needs exacerbated by the crisis which could make good use of that money, but no, we must do anything to keep the multinationals here, even losing our sovereignty for the sake of the jobs they provide. Let us look at those jobs. Zero-hour or low-hour contracts and precarious work are all features of the Government's desperate job creation policy, which looks to multinationals as a quick fix for the unemployment crisis. Multinationals have been given a central role in the economic recovery. They have even stayed relatively secure during the recession, and this year IDA Ireland promoted the central position of multinationals in job creation with an announcement on the potential creation of 80,000 jobs. Today multinationals represent 12% of total private sector employment. What about our indigenous companies? Why are they not central to our jobs policy?

Why is the Government not creating an environment to foster SMEs in growing, developing and continuing to create local jobs?

SMEs and Irish companies would never get away with not paying the 12.5% corporate tax rate.

That is not to say that multinational companies cannot play a role in our economy, but that should not be at the expense of society. Ireland is now facing growing economic inequality, with the wealthiest 20% owning around 70% of the country's total wealth, while the least well off 40% of Irish households have an almost 0% share in Ireland's wealth. The gap between rich and poor is increasing almost to US levels. There are undoubted links between tax avoidance carried out by multinationals and increasing economic inequality. The Government is very slow to react to the inherent inequalities in our taxation system, and reform is only just about on the horizon. The "double Irish" taxation mechanism was targeted by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, in last year's budget but it will not end until 2020 or beyond. If we are serious about income inequality and rising levels of poverty in Ireland, we need to think about implementing a fairer taxation system, under which those who can pay must pay. Apart from enforcing the corporation tax on multinationals, there must be other changes in our taxation policy.

Our tax code currently has the interests of the elite at heart. The distribution of wealth rarely strays further than a select few individuals who are protected by their tight networks and their access to large amounts of capital and assets. One idea that was floated recently was a financial transactions tax, which this Government was completely against, citing its competitive corporation tax mantra once again. The past two decades have witnessed the elimination of taxes on financial transactions in numerous countries, resulting in less control over the financial sector. Despite promises by governments since 2008, there has been very little reform of the financial sector, even though it was central to the economic crash. A financial transactions tax would be progressive in that it would target the financial services sector that is currently exempt from VAT.

Do we really have a progressive tax system? A tax system can mean more than just corporate or wealth tax. It can include taxes on capital and income as well as value added and other forms of taxation. VAT is inherently unequal because taxes on consumption are disproportionately paid by people on low incomes who have to spend all of their money. Almost all of the tax paid by the bottom 30% of households is in the form of indirect taxes.

Tax avoidance extends into the international arena. In the EU there are moves towards greater transparency in tax policy, but it remains to be seen whether this will have any impact at all or whether it will be enforced. EU finance Ministers will be meeting in Luxembourg on Tuesday and are expected to reach political agreement on the automatic exchange of tax rulings, a proposal launched by the European Commission this year in the wake of the Lux Leaks scandal. The proposal is to oblige states to share details of their tax rulings - essentially letters of comfort offered to companies by tax authorities - with other member states as part of a broader move towards greater corporate tax transparency across the EU. The re-launch of the common consolidated corporate tax base, which would harmonise the way taxes are calculated across the EU, was also announced in June. However, there are concerns that this could disadvantage Ireland due to the size of our economy.

Globally, it is estimated that tax avoidance costs governments between $100 billion and $400 billion in lost revenue. In fact, we do not even know how much we are losing out to these practices. While it can be argued that the recent OECD report is a step towards greater transparency in global taxation practices, the report has some shortfalls and is not nearly as aggressive as the multinationals are in their tax avoidance practices. The OECD report presents a package that does not legislate for companies to pay tax where they do real business or to stop the use of tax havens. It is effectively a code of practice as opposed to a real initiative which seeks to legislate for more equitable tax systems.

One step that we could take if we wanted to address inequality in our society is to make 12.5% the effective tax rate for corporations. We could ask the multinationals to pay the tax rate that supposedly attracted them to this country in the first place - that is, 12.5% - and make that an effective rate on their bookable profits from the very start. That would provide very useful revenue for this State to help to address the inequalities right across the State and to enable us to undo the damage that has been done throughout the crisis. In doing that, we would not have to increase the corporation tax rate by even 1%. We could just make the corporations pay the rate they claim attracted them to the country in the first place. Was that it, or was the real attraction knowing that they could use all of their tax avoidance measures without being pursued by the State in order to reduce their corporation tax bills even further? That is a question that must be asked.

Yesterday I had a conversation with a constituent about the issue of income inequality across our society. That individual, who must have been a Fine Gael voter, argued that we must reward risk takers and entrepreneurs and that everybody benefits from that. However, the reality is that everybody does not benefit. The rising tide certainly does not lift all boats. If we have learned anything from the crash and the boom before it, it is that. Income inequality continued to rise and poverty continued to grow. Even if we were going to develop policies to reward risk takers, those risk takers would not be multinationals. The multinationals that come to Ireland are not taking risks by coming here. The multinationals that come here are already internationally established companies who come here to maximise profits. They do not come here to take risks on new products or to risk their entire businesses by investing and creating jobs. They come here because they know they can manipulate the tax system and get away with not even paying 12.5% in tax. If we want to talk about rewarding risk takers, we should look at our own indigenous Irish companies that are trying to compete against the global multinationals. They are taking risks but they are the ones that end up paying the 12.5%. They are not the ones who can use the system and manipulate the code to reduce their tax bills. If we want to reward those people, that is fair enough. Let us target those who are not taking risks, the companies and corporations that are not risking anything by coming here, and make sure that they contribute to our society for the benefit of all of our people. One thing is certain - the rising tide of multinationals will not lift too many boats in this country.

The next speaker is Deputy Simon Harris, who is sharing time with Deputies Michael Creed and Derek Nolan.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

"welcomes the publication of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2015 Final Reports which outline an internationally agreed approach to combatting aggressive tax planning and harmful tax practices;

notes that:

— from the beginning, the key aim of the BEPS project has been to align the right to tax with real economic substance and activity and, as such, the BEPS project is one which aligns with Ireland’s own tax strategy; and

— the BEPS reports give countries the tools they need to ensure that profits are taxed where economic activities generating the profits are performed and where value is created, while giving business greater certainty by reducing disputes over the application of international tax rules;

believes the OECD BEPS recommendations provide the best solution to the global problems of base erosion and profit shifting;

further notes:

— the intention of the Government to introduce country-by-country reporting in line with the approach agreed in the OECD;

— the intention of the Government to introduce a Knowledge Development Box, which will be the first and only such box in the world that complies with the OECD’s new standards; and

— that changes to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations as a result of the BEPS project will ensure the better alignment of the taxation of profits with economic activity;

welcomes the participation of developing countries and regional tax organisations in the BEPS project work and their influence on the outputs of the BEPS reports, and further welcomes the OECD’s commitment to continue this engagement and to develop practical tool-kits to assist developing countries in targeting BEPS activities;

notes the Government’s intention to publish a spillover analysis of the impact of Ireland’s tax system, including the tax treaty network, on the economies of developing countries with Budget 2016;

recalls that Ireland has introduced changes to its corporate tax residence rules to ensure that they keep pace with international best practice;

notes that the 12.5 per cent corporation tax rate is a key element of Ireland’s corporate tax strategy together with our regime and our reputation and that the extensive research published with Budget 2015 shows how this has played a crucial role in attracting and retaining foreign direct investment in Ireland; and

welcomes the fact that:

— Ireland has been a world leader in the area of tax transparency;

— Ireland was one of the first countries in the world to sign a Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) agreement on automatic exchange of financial information with the United States of America;

— Ireland is a member of the Early Adopters Group, that have committed to early implementation of the new OECD standard on the automatic exchange of financial account information;

— Ireland was one of just 18 countries to receive the top rating as part of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes peer review process of countries exchange of information legislation; and

— as an European Union (EU) member state, Ireland has also agreed to the EU Directives on automatic exchange on information within the EU and is committed to their transposition."

I thank Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan for tabling this timely motion. I look to forward to this debate because legitimate issues arise regarding aggressive tax planning as the Government and country recognise. Unfortunately, these legitimate issues tend to get lost in hyperbole and we must be careful to ensure that does not occur. We should also remember the value of attracting foreign direct investment, not only to Dublin where many of the multinational giants are located but to all of our constituencies and counties.

International financial services, one of the sectors for which I have responsibility, directly employs 35,000 people, of whom 12,000 are employed outside the greater Dublin region. Many of these jobs are in County Donegal, which is obviously doing something well in terms of having an attractive workforce that attracts companies to the country. Let us not ignore the reality that a large number of talented young Irish people are pursuing well-paid careers in a number of multinational companies.

The Minister has done more to reform the tax system and to implement a road map for tax competitiveness than any of his predecessors in recent years. He launched the road map for tax competitiveness last year and abolished the double Irish, as it became known. Despite opposition to its abolition from the Fianna Fáil Party, which called on him to await the outcome of the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting or BEPS process, the Minister decided to plough ahead. He also abolished stateless companies and the Department has been an active participant in the BEPS process at a political and official level. I acknowledge the great work done by our officials in that regard.

The international tax agenda has risen to the top of the agenda around the world. Achieving a fair international tax system is now correctly recognised as a global priority. While the Government agrees that many of the issues raised in the Opposition motion are important, we do not agree with the characterisation of the Irish corporation tax system. The amendment proposed by the Government sets the record straight in terms of the transparency and robustness of the Irish system, while giving due recognition to the important changes that have taken place in recent times and the further challenges that lie ahead and need to be addressed.

Yesterday, the OECD published its final base erosion and profit shifting reports. The BEPS reports are the culmination of more than two years of intensive consultation and negotiation involving OECD, the G20 and non-OECD countries. Ireland welcomes the publication of the reports and will now play an active part in the work to implement the recommendations globally. From the very beginning of this project Ireland has been a strong supporter of the OECD's work. Let us stop the nonsense of pretending we were dragged into the process kicking and screaming. Ireland has been a leader in this regard and we believe a multilateral response, such as that provided by the OECD, represents the best solution for dealing with aggressive tax planning.

In 2013, the Government published Ireland's international tax strategy. This policy statement set out Ireland's approach for dealing with international tax policy issues such as aggressive tax planning. This statement included Ireland's international tax charter, which outlines Ireland's policy objectives and commitments on international tax issues.

As I indicated, we published our road map for tax competitiveness last year. This has helped to place Ireland in a very strong position for the post-BEPS world. Ireland has also introduced changes to its corporate tax residence rules in recent years to ensure they keep pace with international best practice. The Government amendment highlights Ireland's commitment to dealing with these global problems.

The key aim of the OECD BEPS project has been to align the right to tax with real economic substance and activity. As such, the project is one which aligns with Ireland's tax strategy. We want companies to locate here and bring investment and jobs. Why else would we want companies to come here if not to deliver jobs, investment and euro to the economy? Jobs and investment are the cornerstones of our foreign direct investment policy, which precisely aligns with the entire purpose of the OECD BEPS process. From an Irish perspective, consistent international action to tackle aggressive tax planning is far preferable to countries doing their own thing and taking unilateral action.

The BEPS reports are comprehensive and the key outcome of the measures contained in the final reports is to give countries the tools they need to ensure profits are taxed where economic activities generating the profits are performed and value is created. In addition, the reports will give business greater certainty by reducing disputes over the application of international tax rules.

The BEPS reports do not affect Ireland's 12.5% corporation tax rate. The OECD has explicitly stated that taxation is at the core of countries' sovereignty and each country is free to set up its corporate tax system as it chooses, including charging the rate it chooses. The 12.5% corporation tax rate is critical to supporting our economic recovery and employment growth and a low corporate tax rate is a tool to address the economic limitations that come with being a peripheral country, as compared to core countries. Deputies need not take my word for that and can instead read the ESRI report published on budget day last year.

Focus will now shift to the implementation of the BEPS reports. Ireland is committed to the BEPS project and we will play a full part in its implementation. Our commitment to the BEPS project and tackling aggressive tax planning has been noted by the OECD Secretary General who recently cited Ireland as "a strong and exemplary case of adapting and adopting" to reform of the global tax regime.

As a number of Deputies noted, the most immediate action emerging from the BEPS process for Ireland will be the introduction of country by country reporting in line with the BEPS recommendations. As the Minister stated yesterday in Brussels, country by country reporting will be legislated for in this year's finance Bill, which will follow the budget next week. It is our intention to implement this proposal in a way that is absolutely consistent with the recommendations of the OECD. This will introduce a requirement for large multinationals to file reports of income, taxes paid and certain measures of economic activity on a country by country basis. The report is to be filed with the tax authority where the group parent is tax resident and then shared with other tax authorities. The reports provide a valuable risk assessment tool for tax authorities.

Country by country reporting has been described by some commentators as a "game changer" in tackling aggressive tax planning. On launching the BEPS reports yesterday, the OECD highlighted Ireland as one of the first countries to commit to implementing country by country reporting. Ireland's 2013 international tax strategy statement flagged our support for country by country reporting. Our early commitment to implement the OECD's recommendations is consistent with our long-standing policy of supporting increased openness and transparency in tax matters.

The motion asks that the information in country by country reports be made publicly available. The OECD is very clear on this point - to protect the confidentiality of potentially sensitive information the reports must not be made publically available. If a country breaches this confidentiality requirement, partner countries may suspend the exchange of information. This must be about global solutions.

It is important to note, however, that the European Commission is separately examining the issue of public country by country reporting. This would require companies to make information publicly available about its operations, activities and profits in each country in which it operates. The Commission recently held a public consultation on the issue and has commissioned an impact assessment. Ireland awaits the outcome of this assessment and will continue to actively engage in the debate on this issue at European Union level.

The second immediate outcome of the BEPS report, one which has also been noted by previous speakers, is the proposed knowledge development box. The box will be designed in full compliance with the OECD's proposals for such measures and the Minister has signalled his intention to introduce such a box in budget 2016. The knowledge development box will enhance the competitiveness of the Irish tax offering for intellectual property and ensure Ireland continues to be the location of choice for foreign direct investment that involves real employment and economic activity. It will provide a rate of tax for intellectual property income that is below the normal headline rate to encourage companies to locate high-value jobs that are associated with the development of intellectual property in Ireland.

The Government has committed that the knowledge development box will meet the standards agreed internationally for such incentives, which have been agreed as part of the BEPS process and endorsed by the European Union. It is important to note from a competitiveness, promotional and reputational point of view that the knowledge development box will be the first and only such box in the world that complies with the OECD's new standards. The legislation to enact the box is being finalised and will be included in the Finance Bill 2015.

The other key BEPS recommendations will be implemented either through a multilateral instrument which will be negotiated during 2016 or through changes to the OECD's transfer pricing guidelines. The multilateral instrument will seek to update global tax treaties in one go to ensure they meet the new global standards set out in the BEPS reports. The OECD's transfer pricing guidelines will be updated to ensure profits are properly aligned with the value created through underlying economic activities.

As Deputies will be aware, the European Union is also debating how BEPS recommendations can be implemented at EU level. The European Commission published a detailed action plan on corporate taxation in June, which contains a number of proposals, including an anti-BEPS directive and the relaunch of the common consolidated corporate tax base proposal. On the proposed anti-BEPS directive, Ireland supports the consistent implementation of BEPS recommendations across the European Union. A co-ordinated EU approach to implementing BEPS could ensure legal certainty and coherence in the Single Market and a strong common defence against profit-shifting out of the EU. However, as the Minister made clear yesterday, Ireland believes it is important that any anti-BEPS directive is consistent with the OECD BEPS reports and does not go beyond them.

As set out in the Government amendment, Ireland has been a leader internationally in the area of tax transparency. This morning in Brussels, European finance Ministers reached political agreement on the amendment to the directive on administrative co-operation, also known as DAC 3 as the directive is in its third iteration. When transposed, this directive will provide for the automatic exchange of information on rulings throughout the EU. This directive was a direct EU response to the scandal known as LuxLeaks.

Ireland has been fully supportive of the proposal from the beginning and we welcome today's agreement. The domestic Irish response to the LuxLeaks revelations was that the Revenue Commissioners decided to look at the material relating to Irish based entities and make inquiries to see if they could ascertain whether the Irish tax system was being abused in any fashion. I understand the Revenue Commissioners propose to write to the Department of Finance to provide it with a high level outline of the outcome of their inquiries, with a particular emphasis on highlighting any tax policy issues for Ireland that might be identified.

In relation to the issue of a register of beneficial ownership, the EU is also currently looking at proposals in this area. Article 30 of the recently published fourth anti-money laundering directive provides that information on beneficial owners of corporate and other legal entities must be held in a central register and accessible by certain persons. The Department of Finance is considering this article in the course of the transposition of the directive in conjunction with other Departments. A public consultation on the transposition of the directive will be held in the coming months and it is due to be transposed into Irish law by June 2017.

I turn to the ongoing state aid investigation being pursued by the European Commission and which has wrongly been referenced by some Deputies in the House this evening. Before I update the House on this matter, I reject completely the suggestion in the Private Members' motion that the investigation reveals a lack of transparency or accountability from the Revenue Commissioners to the Irish people. That is completely inaccurate. Ireland's Revenue Commissioners are statutorily independent and carry out their duties with the highest levels of integrity. If we impugn them in any way in that regard, it does not serve us well. Last year, the competition directorate of the European Commission announced its intention to open formal state aid investigations into tax rulings provided to a number of companies in various EU countries. The announcement is part of a much wider review of tax ruling practices being undertaken by the European Commission. Earlier this year, the Commission announced that it was broadening its inquiries to include all member states. As the Commission has noted, Ireland has co-operated fully with the process to date and we will continue to do so. I emphasise that while the Commission has opened a formal investigation in relation to one particular case involving Ireland, it has not made a final determination in the matter no matter how many times people repeat assertions to the contrary. Ireland provided a detailed and comprehensive response to the Commission investigation demonstrating that the appropriate amount of Irish tax was charged in accordance with the relevant legislation, that no selective advantage was given and that there was no state aid. Yesterday, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, made it clear that if there is a finding against Ireland by the Commission, we will challenge it in the European Courts. We will defend this because we are in the right.

As the House is well aware, tax law in Ireland is created and enacted by the Oireachtas. There is no specific provision in Irish tax law for the issuing of binding tax rulings and such rulings are not provided under the Irish tax system. However, non-binding opinions on the application of tax law to specific transactions or situations are issued by the Revenue Commissioners. A Revenue opinion will give Revenue's view of the correct application of tax legislation to a particular transaction, activity or event. Revenue opinions are designed to provide clarity in relation to the applicable tax rules in circumstances where there might otherwise be uncertainty and to enable a taxpayer to file a correct tax return as required by legislation. Revenue practice and procedures for providing opinions are set out in published guidelines, which are available on Revenue's website. In responding to the Commission's state aid inquiries in relation to ruling practices and its request for details of advance opinions relating to corporation tax issued to companies, a total of 120 such opinions were identified on average for each of the years 2010 to 2012. This is a relatively small number in the context of the number of companies filing a tax return which we estimate is approximately 120,000. It shows that opinions are not a major feature of the Irish tax system. This is because Revenue provides a wide range of information in published tax briefings and guidance notes. A taxpayer should only require an opinion from Revenue where the issue is complex, information is not readily available and there is uncertainty in regard to the applicable tax rules.

I want to talk about engagement with developing countries. Ireland's "One World, One Future" policy for international development commits us to an all-of-Government approach to international development and recognises that the achievement of international development goals must be underpinned by the ability of all countries, including developing countries, to raise their own revenue. The OECD's BEPS process also sought to involve developing countries to ensure all viewpoints were considered. Developing countries and regional tax organisations have participated in BEPS project work and influenced the outputs of the BEPS reports. The OECD has made a welcome commitment to continue this engagement and develop practical toolkits to assist developing countries in targeting BEPS activities. On the domestic front, the Department of Finance committed in the document "Ireland's International Tax Strategy" in October 2013 to engaging with developing countries to assist them in increasing their domestic tax revenues in ways that are more efficient, fairer and which better promote good governance and equity. As part of this commitment, the Department of Finance is publishing a spillover analysis of the impact of Ireland's tax system, including the tax treaty network, on the economies of developing countries on budget day. Only one other country in the world - the Netherlands - has previously carried out a similar spillover analysis project. Last year, the Minister, Deputy Noonan, called on the OECD to adopt, at least in spirit, a 16th action in the BEPS project insisting that all countries undertake spillover analyses of how their taxation regimes impact the developing world. We reiterate our encouragement to all countries to carry out such an analysis.

The actions taken in recent years by Ireland and our involvement in international fora such as the OECD and EU mean we are well positioned for the post BEPS environment. Our next challenge is to implement the BEPS actions. Ireland will play its part, as it has done to date, in implementing the recommendations and contributing to solutions to these global problems. Global problems require global solutions and the multilateral approach adopted by G20 and OECD countries in dealing with these difficult policy challenges is a model for co-operation in today's globalised economy. I acknowledge, as the motion does, the work of Oxfam. I had the opportunity, as had many Members, to meet with Oxfam in recent weeks. It is doing an excellent job of highlighting many important issues including those which will be dealt with in the BEPS process as well as issues we need to deal with at European level. I am proud of the spillover analysis we are carrying out to check the impact of our own tax system on the developing world and I look forward to its publication. I encourage other countries to follow the lead of Ireland and the Netherlands in that regard.

Tonight's motion is really worthwhile in that it gives us an opportunity to have an extensive debate on a number of important issues. Nobody on this side of the House is trying to assert that everything is wonderful and that there are no challenges. It is absolutely the case that there are issues which need to be addressed in relation to aggressive tax planning and we believe the way to address them is a global process. It is through all countries sitting around a table and working out solutions rather than people taking unilateral action. We are proud to have played a leading role in that and to be involved in the first implementation of many of the actions. We look forward to progressing some of them through the Finance Bill and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Base erosion and profit-shifting is a global phenomenon that requires a global policy response. In that context, I welcome the publication yesterday of the OECD report in the matter. Indeed, I would have welcomed a debate on the issue tonight, but it is clear from the content of the contributions made by the proponents of the motion and in the motion itself that there has been a reversion to type and a debate about Ireland's corporation profits tax rate. That is not an issue being considered at all in the OECD report. We reverted to name calling of multinationals. We would do well to remember in the context of the debate that we are a small, open trading economy. We have an indigenous sector which, fortunately, is getting back on its feet and playing a role in the domestic and exporting economy, but equally a critical element of our economic recovery involves foreign direct investment. One of the things that foreign direct investors value is political and economic stability. I shudder to think of the message they would take from the proponents of the motion as to how safe and secure their investments would be were some of those proponents sitting on the front benches on this side of the House.

Deputy Joan Collins would do well to remember that foreign direct investment is, above all else, highly mobile. She would do well to remember that we take in approximately €2.8 billion in tax revenue under corporation profits tax. We are a peripheral economy. We are peripheral economically and geographically and one of the tools we have to use to our advantage is our corporation profits tax rate which, fortunately, is still a national competence. It is not something that can be imposed or dictated from outside. Long may that be the case and long should the Members of the House protect our economic sovereignty in that regard rather than cede it to the OECD, EU or anybody else. We would also do well to remember that the 1,000 companies involved, some of which Deputy Collins and others name-called and some of which give very valuable employment in my constituency, include Alps, VMware, EMC, Stryker, Boston Scientific, Google, Apple and Facebook.

They contribute more than 161,000 direct jobs and 274,000 indirect jobs to this economy. We would do well to remember that, per annum, they pay approximately €8 billion and account for exports of approximately €122 billion, all of which adds to the sum of economic activity. Without them, this country would be in a poorer place.

The Deputies' message is that we are hostile. In a different debate, Deputy Pringle could excoriate the Minister of State over the lack of foreign direct investment, FDI, in the former's part of the constituency when, without any shred of embarrassment, he saw no contradiction with that in his diatribe tonight against FDI and Ireland's corporate tax rate. We cannot have it both ways. We need a mature debate on base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, but that is a different matter from our sovereign entitlement to establish a 12.5% corporate tax rate. I accept that the effective rate is less, but some countries that have substantially higher headline rates have lower effective tax rates. We are competing for FDI. I salute IDA Ireland and the political support that facilitates it in promoting Ireland as the number one location of choice for FDI. This is down to myriad factors that we handle well, for example, our education system, tax system and political stability, and our position as an English-speaking eurozone member. We must be careful in what will be a necessary debate not to send the wrong signals to those with investments to make.

Recently, I accepted an invitation from a foreign direct investor, Pfizer in Cork, which provides much employment in the pharmaceutical sector. It has some operations in the Minister of State's constituency. It made the point that, when facing significant challenges a number of years ago, it considered closing one of its plants. Companies close when they do not make profit. "Profit" is not a dirty word. Without profit, businesses close and people lose their jobs. We would do well to remember that because Deputies Joan Collins and Boyd Barrett would be the first to jump up and down if a significant foreign direct investor in their constituencies was about to leave-----

They are paying no tax on their profits. The Deputy cannot say that.

-----on the grounds that it could not make a profit in Ireland. "Profit" is not a dirty word for large or small business.

It is what keeps business and jobs alive. We would do well to remember this simple economic message. People on the far side of the House seem to have a difficulty grasping it.

In the context of the OECD's report, I urge the Minister of State to be extremely careful as regards unilateral action and the choreographing of the requisite changes. We do not need to make martyrs of ourselves on the international altar. We need to address the issues that have been raised, but we must ensure that the choreography around minimum standards and common approaches does not disadvantage us. As with a phrase coined during the Northern Ireland peace process, we must ensure that people "jump together" at EU and OECD level on tax treaties and so on and that we are not disadvantaged by the legislation that will be necessary to underpin the report's recommendations. We have not been dragged kicking and screaming. Rather, we have been an active participant in this process. Our economy and people who gain valuable employment in the FDI sector should not be disadvantaged. We should send the signal that their employment is welcome and that we intend to protect and attract inward investment.

I believe that Deputy Creed spoke to a different motion, as the one before the House is welcome, timely and positive and I thank the Deputies, particularly Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, for introducing it.

I wish to address the idea of asking people to jump first. Almost €1 trillion in illicit financial flows left developing countries in 2011 for developed countries. This was facilitated by transfer mispricing, which is incorrect pricing between companies, false invoicing and hybrid mismatches of different types of tax treaty to the benefit of the developed countries versus the developing countries. This is seven times the amount of overseas development aid, ODA, that is given to developing countries every year. Let us realise that this is a serious issue. People have jumped first and are paying the price for it, those being, people in developing countries who are being starved of their own natural resources, which are travelling to developed countries.

The BEPS process is positive and, if we want it to, has the ability to achieve an outcome that leads to the type of international financial architecture that produces what we need. Alternatively, the process could be restrictive, selective and mealy-mouthed to give the impression that we are doing something right.

The issue was never with Ireland's corporate tax rate of 12.5%. The issue was with how people were able to manipulate the tax structure via our tax residency rules. For example, creative licences held in other countries could be racked up in an American tax system that did not recognise tax residency in Ireland. Anything that was earned elsewhere could be funnelled through Ireland without tax being paid on it. Tax was paid on anything earned in Ireland, so our rate was not the issue. Rather, our tax infrastructure, when interacting with another country's infrastructure, allowed for a loophole. Perhaps the criticism of us was not because of our 12.5% rate, but because we did not close the loophole even though we knew that this system was in place. The same argument could be made against the government of the other country that was a party to the system, namely, the US, which also knew that its tax code facilitated the same loophole.

How we account for royalty payments, patents and intellectual property is an issue. We claim that none of the value is held in other European countries because the only aspect that matters is the intellectual property, which is held in Ireland - not the building of the iPhone, the packaging, the marketing or the selling - so no tax is due in other developed countries. If BEPS and the OECD process do not solve this basic unfairness of funnelling profits into a country like Ireland, using this system not to pay tax and putting money in offshore tax havens like Bermuda, they will not be worth the paper on which they are written.

We must consider another step. As this issue affects everyone around the world, we should be considering a human rights-based approach to tax. If one wishes to vindicate people's economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, money is required. As someone once stated, we have set up the ugliest economic affairs since slavery, in that the tax system allows money to be taken out of developing countries where people are dying. Some $100 million recovered from this type of tax evasion could immunise 4 million children and save their lives. It is estimated that, between 2001 and 2015, some 5.6 million young people died because of the revenues lost due to the tax issues of transfer mispricing and false invoicing. Ireland has played a part in that. The scary aspect is that it does not need to be Ireland. Owing to the way that the system is set up, the revenue could be moved again. It is good that we are closing the double Irish, as it can be circumvented by a company being based offshore in Bermuda or in Malta where royalties or patents are not taxed. The double Irish can be fixed in the morning. The idea that we have closed it is not accurate.

This motion is welcome. The Government's amendment, which I agree with, points to many positives, but it could have acknowledged more of the effort that was invested on the Opposition benches in highlighting some of the moral outrages that matter in the world. We have a long way to go. As a nation, we will be judged on how we implement the multilateral treaty and the BEPS process. My position is that we are serious about this.

It is true that Ireland was only the second country in the world to bring in a spillover analysis and has been to the fore in pushing the BEPS process and changing its tax structures. However, Ireland must have an overarching vision of what it wishes to do with its tax system. It should be based on human rights and recognising Ireland's obligations not just to itself, its people and Members' constituents and their jobs but also to the lives of people around the world who are dependent on the resources they produce and their natural resources provide.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate and thank Deputies Maureen O'Sullivan, Joan Collins, Boyd Barrett and their colleagues for tabling this motion. While I agree with much of what is contained in this motion, Fianna Fáil cannot support it for a number of reasons. On reading through the motion that has been tabled, there is an implicit criticism of Ireland's corporation tax rate. That is not a position Fianna Fáil can support and, equally, there are calls for Ireland to move urgently to change its corporate tax regime and that would be of concern to me. Genuine issues have been raised in this motion that require careful consideration and must be addressed. Deputy Boyd Barrett and I served on a sub-committee of the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform that examined this issue and held a series of hearings into it. I am sure we did not agree on everything but we learned a lot and the stand-out point I took from the sub-committee's analysis of the issue and from the hearings held with various interested parties was that transfer pricing plays a central role in aggressive tax planning by multinationals, particularly in the area of intellectual property rights and royalty payments. The practice that emerged and which is well documented was of profits ultimately being channelled to tax havens, and Ireland is not a tax haven, through the ownership of intellectual property in the tax haven and of that company, which invariably was a book or shelf company, charging extremely high royalty payments to other subsidiaries of the overall company abroad with the net result being the profits end up in the tax haven in which no tax in effect is charged. This was the key issue that emerged for me during the debate. One is talking about places like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands or Jersey, which are overseas dependencies or Crown territories of the United Kingdom. It is ironic that the United Kingdom is one of the G20, which is pushing for these changes, and its authorities might examine what influence they can bring to bear on many of these countries in which billions of euro in profits are ending up and where they are not subject to corporation tax. The United States of course feels especially aggrieved by this because, under its own laws, multinational profits cannot be taxed until the profits are repatriated. Consequently, the United States also has an issue in respect of its own legislation.

I believe any changes to Ireland's corporate tax system must be considered carefully given the huge contribution it has made to the creation of large numbers of high-quality jobs nationwide and any changes should be based on evidence. This debate takes place against the backdrop of the news Members received today that European Union finance ministers have agreed to exchange automatically information on tax arrangements reached with multinational companies, and it remains to be seen whether the sharing of confidential communications between Revenue and multinational investors in Ireland with its EU counterparts will have a positive or negative effect on Ireland's ability to attract inward investment. Ireland historically has used its corporate tax policy in a manner designed to support multinational investment. At the end of 2014, there were 174,000 people employed in IDA-supported companies, and while not all these jobs can be attributed directly to the impact of Ireland's corporate tax regime, it remains a vital part of our offering to prospective investors alongside other features such as market access, access to skilled labour and a stable regulatory environment. The people also have been clear about how important it is to them that Ireland retains this tool for job creation and in particular on the issue of the corporation tax rate. While I acknowledge this is not the central issue in the motion tabled, a core part of the debate in every European treaty referendum held in Ireland has been a discussion about the importance of it retaining control of our corporate tax policy, with the public insisting that Ireland's corporate tax system, and the corporation tax rate in particular, is a red-line issue that cannot be compromised in any way. Ireland has made clear consistently it will not accept any attempt to force tax harmonisation on it against its will. I am sure all Members can agree a one-size-fits-all tax system would neither work for Europe nor serve it well.

The question of corporation tax occasionally can become clouded in myth. One myth that often surfaces in debates such as this is that increasing the rate will lead to a pro rata increase in corporation tax revenue. Fianna Fáil does not submit to that view. All Members must bear in mind that Ireland is now competing for international investment in a highly competitive global environment and the text of this motion is built in part on the myth that corporations contribute very little to the taxes collected by the Irish State. Recent Exchequer figures show, however, that corporation tax has brought in €3.9 billion in the first nine months of the year, which is €1.2 billion more than for the same period last year. Consequently, without changing its corporation tax rate or rules in any significant way, Ireland has benefited disproportionately well from the global economic upturn. The percentage of Irish tax revenue generated from taxes on corporate profits has been almost exactly on a par with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, average since 2007. From 1993 to 2006, Ireland was above the OECD average in its reliance on taxes on corporate profits, and this point is often not made when Members debate corporation tax. Most countries in the EU gather a smaller percentage of their overall tax revenues from taxing corporate profits than does Ireland. The list of those EU countries that place less of the tax burden on corporations includes large countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany, all of which are members of the G20, which is the driving force behind recent proposals to change the international approach to corporation tax. For example, Germany gathers 5% of its tax revenues from taxing corporate profits while in Ireland, that figure is far higher at approximately 9%. In comparison with GDP, taxes on corporate profits in Ireland are more than a third higher than in Germany and, in this context, one must be wary of corporation tax changes dictated by large countries of the G20. It is worth remembering that large countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany and others that criticise Ireland's corporate tax regime are themselves actively cutting corporation tax and are seeking to make their tax regimes more attractive. One should not lose sight of the fact that at the heart of this international debate is an envy to some degree of Ireland's success in attracting inward investment. Many other countries covet our jobs, investment and corporation tax revenue and Members must also bear this in mind.

Corporations that are drawn to Ireland, in part by its corporate tax system, also pay taxes other than corporation tax. One example is commercial rates, which are essential in funding local services. One technology company contributes almost €3 million per year in commercial rates to Dublin City Council for a cluster of buildings in the Grand Canal Dock area. In small companies, profits are taxed twice as the company pays corporation tax before issuing dividends to shareholders, who then pay income tax on them. As employers, multinational corporations pay employers' PRSI and their employees pay tax on their incomes. The model of Ireland's corporation tax system over recent decades has been focused on job creation with its corporate tax system becoming one of the main attractions of Ireland to multinational companies seeking a European base. Employment is created directly by multinational companies attracted to Ireland but also indirectly as they put huge sums of money into the Irish economy. This indirect increase in employment can be considerable. For instance, Apple employs more than 4,000 people in Cork but it also is believed to have created indirectly at least a further 2,000 to 2,500 jobs in the local area.

As an aside, I must state my concern regarding the ongoing delay by the European Commission in concluding its investigation into certain tax matters between Apple and the Revenue Commissioners. This issue has been hanging there for a considerable time and is a cloud, as such, over Ireland's corporate tax regime that must be dealt with one way or another. If the European Commission believes there is an issue in this regard, it should conclude its deliberations and make that known and we will deal with it. The Minister of State has made clear that the Government, having examined the files and having taken the advice of the Revenue, does not believe that Ireland has a case to answer.

It remains to be seen what will happen in that area but it needs to be brought to a conclusion. We very much support the investment by Apple, and many other companies, in Ireland.

The point must also be made that these are not brass-plate operations. In the debate regarding corporation tax and multinational companies, there is often a perception that these companies are simply book companies - in other words, they erect a brass plate beside the front door but no one actually works in the building. That could not be further from the truth in the case of Ireland, which has attracted many of the world's largest multinationals in the areas of information technology, pharmaceuticals, etc.

The original success of our corporate tax strategy was seen in the financial services sector, especially in the IFSC. That success has been followed by incredible growth in high-tech industries. While we all know the names of the Internet giants such as Google, Facebook and PayPal, which employ thousands of people in Ireland, we must also remember companies in other fields. For example, in the medical technology areas there is Medtronic, which has over 2,500 employees in Ireland, most of whom are based in Galway. Those seeking to bring prestigious international employers to Cork can now boast that EMC, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Amazon and Apple have chosen it as the European base of their global operations. These are real companies, not brass-plate operations, and that point should be to the fore in this debate. The examples to which I refer show how a critical mass of companies in a certain sector established in Ireland develops a world centre for that industry here, attracting other companies with similar businesses that are eager to benefit from the expertise of a highly-skilled local workforce. The spin-off businesses that are created and supported are vital to the indigenous sector as well. However, we must also be alert to the opposite effect. If some companies in a sector were forced to leave Ireland as a result of negative changes to our corporate tax system, others might also leave as Ireland's critical mass of expertise takes flight to other countries for tax reasons. That could have a profound effect on the knowledge economy clusters linked to the pharmaceutical industry and to the Internet companies located in the so-called silicon docks area of Dublin.

Rather than attacking our corporate tax system, it would be preferable to focus on looking for merging sectors that could create the next opportunity for jobs growth in this country. One area we have placed considerable emphasis on is the opportunity presented to leverage Irish expertise in Internet technology, namely, e-commerce and online payments technology, on the one hand, and financial services, on the other, in order to ensure Ireland becomes a world leader in financial technology.

Much focus has been placed on corporation tax systems in the international context by the OECD's publication of its recent report on base erosion and profit sharing, BEPS. This report estimates that base erosion and profit shifting can lead to a loss of between 4% and 10% of corporate tax revenues. The reforms it proposes would represent the most wide-ranging overhaul of relevant tax rules in many decades. My reaction to these proposals has been to make clear that Ireland should think very carefully before agreeing to any changes that would affect the offering we can make in terms of inward investment. Ireland punches significantly above its weight in terms of inward investment and any changes to our corporation tax system could ultimately cost jobs and reduce tax revenue to the Irish State. We must ensure that the net effect of these OECD proposals is not simply that corporation tax receipts end up migrating away from countries such as Ireland to larger economies like the G20 states, which have been driving the process.

Fianna Fáil believes that the corporation tax system for multinational companies must be transparent. It must be fairly applied to all companies and it must be underpinned by strict rules against aggressive tax planning. We strongly support a 12.5% rate and we believe that certainty in our corporation tax arrangements is vital. The primary duty of the Government is to protect our national interests. It must ensure that these changes are not implemented in a manner that will place Ireland at a serious disadvantage.

I am concerned by the fact that the proposals which have been put forward appear to leave much to the discretion of tax authorities in individual countries. We must be alive to the possibility that other tax authorities may not act with the same consistency and transparency as the Irish Revenue Commissioners when there is international competition for large employers. Such a lack of clarity is never helpful in taxation matters.

I welcome this opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of our corporation tax system as a key driver of job creation, especially in the knowledge economy. We must be vigilant in protecting our corporation tax system from external attack, in particular by large countries, which consistently place less of a tax burden on their own corporations while still criticising our low tax employment centred approach. There is considerable scope within all of that for improving the system internationally for greater transparency and disclosure, and we very much support that.

In an Irish context, I want to put some figures on the record. The total annual average corporation tax receipts in Ireland between 2008 and 2012 was in the region of €4.1 billion. The top ten companies paid 24%, or €1 billion, of that. The top 20 companies paid 32% and the top 50 companies paid almost half, namely, 46%. We need to bear that in mind. These are real operations providing much valued employment in this country and supporting indirect employment as well, and they are also paying a lot of corporation tax.

Tá mé buíoch as ucht an deis labhairt faoin ábhar fíor-thábhactach seo. Aontaíonn Sinn Féin leis an gcuid is mó den rún seo.

Last week, we heard from the CSO and the OECD that 17.5% - one in six - of Irish people are living abroad. That is a phenomenal figure and it is far worse in the 20 and 30 age group, which is one in four. That makes Ireland worse with regard to those OECD figures. We know that approximately one third of a million people have emigrated, that 250,000 here are unemployed, that 85,000 people are on activation schemes such as JobBridge and that approximately 110,000 people who are underemployed seek proper hours. Approximately 750,000 people out of a population of 4.5 million have been hit hard by this Government's policies.

I spoke with an elderly man recently who has just gone blind as a result of cataracts. He is taking a blood thinning tablet, which means that if he falls and cuts himself he will bleed profusely. He has to wait two years for an operation on his eyes. Five thousand people throughout the country are homeless. People are dying, literally, on the streets for the lack of accommodation. Hundreds of thousands of others are waiting for houses or are to the pin of their collar with regard to mortgages or extremely high rents.

During the recession, the wealth of the 100 richest people in the State increased by €12 billion. The richest 20% own 73% of the wealth of this State while the poorest 20% own 0.2% of the wealth. Part of the reason for that breakdown in services and in the cohesion of the State is the fundamental tax injustice that exists. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour have made tax avoidance an international competitive advantage of this State and, as a result, our reputation internationally is mud. Some years ago, the Taoiseach travelled to California and the Governor of that state joked about Ireland's tax avoidance schemes.

This Government has been dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way with regard to these issues. We have seen U-turns on the double-Irish arrangement with regard to making stateless companies tax resident here. Even when it acted, there was a reluctance and a meanness of spirit. Companies will have five years to extricate themselves from the double-Irish arrangement. What other group of taxpayers would be given a five years period of grace with regard to a tax loophole being closed?

Yesterday, the OECD produced the latest report on BEPS. The idea behind the OECD plan is a worthy one. In the same way that tax evasion at home should be tackled, it should be tackled on an international basis. It is obscene that we have hugely profitable companies, some with turnovers the size of countries, being allowed through accounting practices and other schemes to legally avoid paying much tax at all. We should be clear: Ireland's ability to set its corporation tax is not in question and any argument on that issue is simply a distraction and should not be given any time. What is in question is the ability of the country to fund important services, and our international reputation and in that there are serious and legitimate challenges.

The BEPS plan is not perfect. It has many weaknesses and some of them have been discussed in previous debates.

However, it is a good step forward and it should be actively implemented. I am gobsmacked at some of the figures I have seen today. Thus far this year we have seen an increase of 45% in corporation tax receipts. That represents over €1 billion, an unbelievably large figure. At the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform I asked the chief economist of the Department of Finance what could account for this vast increase. Suggestions were made that it could be because of increased profits or the change in exchange rates. The change in exchange rates or profits could never account for a 45% increase in the three quarters of the year. The chances are that large companies are now putting their taxation houses in order because the base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, measures are coming down the road. If this is the case, and if it follows that we will have higher receipts in corporation tax amounting to hundreds of millions of euro, if not billions, then the Government's inaction in this area during the past four years has actually cost the State €4 billion. The Government has been ideologically opposed to getting these companies to pay their fair share of taxation. The results can be seen in the accident and emergency departments, emergency accommodation and classrooms in this country. This is an example of the vandalism the Government has wrought on the country.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 October 2015.
Top
Share