Vol. 945 No. 2
35. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the status of the second phase of the cost of insurance working group, with particular regard to the increasing cost of insurance for businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16512/17]
There has rightly been a significant focus on motor insurance in recent times, but there has been less of a focus on business insurance, which is the subject of this question. I am asking about employer liability insurance and public liability insurance, in particular, because businesses across the country are facing an insurance crisis. The cost of some premiums has increased by 30%, 40% or 50%. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for premiums to double. This is a huge issue across the country.
The working group on the cost of insurance, having published a report on the cost of motor insurance in January, has now commenced the second phase of its work, which involves addressing the cost of insurance for businesses, specifically employer liability and public liability insurance. As Minister of State at the Department of Finance, I chair the working group, which comprises representatives from the Departments of Finance, Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and Justice and Equality, as well as the Central Bank of Ireland, the State Claims Agency and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The working group intends to build on the work done in the previous phase as it relates to public liability and employer liability claims. It will examine personal injury data and information, the effect of legal costs and litigation processes on insurance costs, current claims compensation arrangements and the cost of claims, and the impact of unlawful activity on the insurance sector. The working group is considering the impact of the cost of insurance on the competitiveness of particular businesses, the impact of health and safety issues on the cost of insurance and other related market issues it identifies.
The working group held its first meeting on 26 January 2017 and met five times so far this year. During this time, it has held extensive consultations with a range of stakeholders, including the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, the Vintners Federation of Ireland, the Licensed Vintners Association, the Retail Grocery Dairy and Allied Trades Association, the Hotels Federation of Ireland and Chambers Ireland. Further consultations are planned. Submissions have been invited from interested parties. Like it did during the first phase of its work, the working group will make recommendations based on its consultations and research. Lead owners will be tasked with the execution of the actions required to implement those recommendations. It is anticipated at this stage that the second phase recommendations will take the form of an addendum to the existing report, as many of them will build on the recommendations in the report on the cost of motor insurance.
I thank the Minister of State. As I said in my introductory remarks, the cost of business insurance is causing a real crisis around the country. I have a list of examples. A hotel in rural Ireland has seen its insurance costs increase from €22,000 to €40,000. A small pub that serves food has been quoted €45,000 for insurance. An issue seems to have arisen with litigation-based insurance, such as employer liability and public liability insurance, because of the lack of predictability and the inconsistency in court awards. In some cases, businesses are taking the risk of not having any insurance at all. They are being forced to take that crazy risk so that they can stay in business. I need to see a sense of urgency in tackling this issue. We will hold the Government to account on the implementation of the good report that has been produced on the motor insurance issue.
We urgently need a similar body of work.
There is some commonality around the injuries board, awards and so on. I ask the Minister of State to understand the urgency and gravity of the situation, which has already closed the doors of many businesses around the country.
I thank the Deputy. I understand the urgency of the issue because of the engagements we have had with businesses. For example, the hospitality sector is taking a very big hit when it comes to increases in insurance premiums. It has tried to control this risk by shutting down particular parts of businesses, such as nightclubs or the hosting of weddings. However, such services are part of the viability of businesses in the first place, therefore they cannot portion out that part of their business.
The work we have done to date has identified particular problems, to which the Deputy alluded, regarding certain businesses taking on higher excesses which is difficult for them in terms of managing their bottom line. Self-insurance is on the increase. Businesses involved in self-insuring could be putting their entire business at risk if they encounter a problem in the future against which they had not provisioned. It is a worrying trend.
We are also considering the role brokers might be able to play and expanding the terms of reference to include that. Fraud is also important. We are receiving very good information from businesses on how fraud is affecting their businesses.
We need to examine issues in order to bring greater consistency to this area, such as the personal injuries commission that has been set up already and is working, strengthening the PIAB and in the second quarter of this year, the changes to the legislation on that. Pre-action protocols can help to bring consistency to the awards process.
The Minister of State is correct in identifying the hospitality sector and businesses in the services sector generally, such as pubs, hotels, nightclubs and anywhere there is public footfall, as being where the issue is most acute, given the uncertainty and inconsistency around the level of awards. The matter has to be dealt with.
The quality of cover is diminishing and the issue of excess is becoming more significant. In one case, the excess is €10,000 for each claim in respect of employer and public liability. Brokers are keeping the show on the road, and many are going to extraordinary lengths to represent their clients and get the best deal they possibly can from insurance companies. In many cases, they are struggling to get any quote. By all means, the Minister of State should engage with them because they have many stories to tell him.
God help any business with an open or outstanding claim which is trying to get a renewal of an existing insurance policy. I will work with the Minister of State on this issue in the spirit of co-operation. It is a significant economic issue which is contributing to the cost base of many businesses. As I said, jobs are on the line. The market is dysfunctional and has to be dealt with.
Quality of cover is key. Certain insurance providers are leaving parts of the market, which is leading to the problem of businesses having to self-insure against particular risks. It is dangerous for businesses and, potentially, the market. We will approach this issue as urgently as we approached motor insurance. The actions under the motor insurance plan are already under way and I look forward to continuing to engage constructively with the Oireachtas committee.
The Deputy will be aware that I already gave a preliminary report on our action plan, which referred to the actions that have begun and the current level of progress. I will continue to appear before the Oireachtas committee as we publish our quarterly reports so that the Deputy can hold me to account and we can get something done. As I said in my initial response, in regard to employer liability insurance and public liability insurance, we will introduce a series of actions with a timeline and work with lead owners so that the Government side can be held to account. We will need to work with the Oireachtas when we need to fast-track particular legislation.
36. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether a commission of investigation should be established into the sale of Project Eagle, in view of the gravity of the Committee of Public Accounts' report on the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16621/17]
I refer to the commission of investigation into Project Eagle. I ask the Minister for Finance to outline his views, given that we have discussed the report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the sale of Project Eagle and, acknowledging the restrictions that were placed on the committee in terms of its reach, that a commission of investigation not be prevented from dealing with fixer fees and so on. Is it now the view of the Minister that he supports the establishment of a commission of investigation into the sale of Project Eagle?
Following the publication of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the Taoiseach met party leaders in September 2016 and received submissions from them on the issue. At a subsequent meeting with party leaders in October, there was agreement in principle to establish a commission of investigation. That remains the Government's position. It is the Government's policy to establish a commission of investigation.
Since then, the Committee of Public Accounts has undertaken extensive hearings and has received extensive verbal and documentary evidence from NAMA, the Department of Finance, many of the companies involved in the Project Eagle bidding process and me. The committee has published a detailed report which has been discussed in the Dáil. It documents the committee's support for a commission of investigation.
Before the Government makes a decision on how to proceed, it will be important to receive and discuss proposed terms of reference for such a commission of investigation from those parties interested in its establishment. I expect each party, through its respective leader, to contribute to the drafting of agreed terms of reference.
I thank the Minister. I take it from his contribution that there will be a commission of investigation into NAMA and the sale of Project Eagle. The Minister will be aware that six months ago Sinn Féin provided terms of reference and will engage with the Taoiseach regarding ensuring the terms of reference are robust enough.
At a meeting at which I represented the party, we made the case very strongly that the commission of investigation would have to take a modular approach and Project Eagle be the initial module. However, other areas would need to come under the scope of the commission of investigation. I understand that viewpoint was shared by others at the meeting.
The minutes of the meeting that took place on 4 October stated that a commission of investigation should be established to allow for a modular approach, called for steps to be taken to establish the commission immediately, before the Committee of Public Accounts completed its report, and recommended that the commission not be sponsored by the Department of Finance. Can the Minister confirm that is still the position of the Department and the Government?
Is it the case that the commission of investigation will not be sponsored by the Department of Finance and will be modular? I ask the Minister to outline his views on whether the commission of investigation will be modular, which would allow for other areas outside the sale of Project Eagle to be included.
As I said, before the Government makes a decision on how to proceed it will be important to receive and discuss proposed terms of reference from party leaders and other interested parties. In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned, I would expect that the Department and Minister for Finance will be within the scope of the terms of reference. As a consequence, it would be inappropriate for it to be the parent Department for the commission of inquiry. The intention in October was that the parent Department would be the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Minister's reply, which I welcome, referred to what is required. Does the Government or the Minister, who will have an input, have a timeframe for the establishment of the commission of investigation? Will it be established before the summer recess or in 2017? Can the Minister give the House an indication of the likely timeframe, subject to agreement with other party leaders and the approval of the terms of reference by the Houses?
Given the manner in which I expect the terms of reference to develop, the Department of Finance would be an interested party and would stand back from the process, which would be the appropriate thing to do. The Deputy should direct any further questions to the Taoiseach to find out what the position might be.
37. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance if he is satisfied with the level and quality of investments made to date by the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund; his views on whether the fund could play a greater role in providing investment in necessary capital infrastructure here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16513/17]
This question relates to the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, established in December 2014. I wish to establish the views of the Minister on the effectiveness of the fund thus far. We have had about two and a half years of experience with it and it has made a range of investments. It could do a lot more at a time when we are crying out for investment in the economy, in particular capital investment. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister.
The Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, was established in December 2014. The creation of ISIF was a commitment in the last Government's programme for Government. The previous Government gave ISIF a unique double bottom line mandate to invest on a commercial basis in a manner designed to support economic activity and employment in Ireland. This mandate sought to demonstrate that the State was prepared to invest its limited investment funds in projects that would yield a commercial return, thus demonstrating its confidence in the future of the Irish economy. The intention of this investment was to leverage additional private sector investment, which I am pleased to state has been higher than expected to date.
Given ISIF's new and unique mandate as a sovereign development fund and because of the uncertainty regarding investment opportunities in Ireland, it was agreed at the time that a formal review of the ISIF investment strategy would take place after 18 months. This was to allow a sufficient period of time to elapse before considering the operations and impact of the fund. The investment strategy review which is due to be completed shortly is examining the performance and impact of ISIF. The review includes an appraisal of the success of ISIF's mandate to the end of December 2016 and requires engagement by both my Department and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform as part of the process.
I am sure the Deputy shares my view that ISIF's double bottom line mandate represents a unique strategic opportunity for Ireland. The mandate is designed to ensure that ISIF's investment generates a return, attracts investors and recycles funds. Without wanting in any way to pre-empt the review that is currently under way, I am encouraged by the quality and impact on the Irish economy of ISIF's investments. ISIF has built up momentum already, including through its future pipeline. ISIF has already committed €2.7 billion and acts as a catalyst for other investors to invest in Irish projects. This includes a commitment of €361 million for infrastructure investment essential to the future competitiveness of the economy. In addition, ISIF's ability to attract co-investment from the private sector means that €7 billion of total investment has been committed to the end of December 2016.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
It is apparent from the investments already in the public domain that, as envisaged at inception, ISIF is utilising its unique investment characteristics of scale, long-term perspective and flexibility to target high economic value investment in Ireland in a way that other funds cannot. ISIF has made investments in the following key economic sectors, namely, housing and construction, SME credit, venture capital and equity funds, connectivity, renewable energy, water provision, forestry and agriculture. The fact that the proceeds of ISIF investment can, unlike State spending, also be recycled to support future economic activity in Ireland illustrates the potential that the ISIF model offers and on which ISIF is currently delivering. I look forward to receiving the ISIF investment strategy review as it will be a useful opportunity to consider ISIF's work to date and the most appropriate use of the fund to help meet the forthcoming challenges that the State faces.
At the end of 2016, the fund's global portfolio was €6.65 billion. As such, that was money not invested in Ireland. While I know the intention is to wind that down over time and to invest the funds in line with ISIF's mandate, it is nevertheless a very substantial figure. When I look at the investments to date, some of them are very good. Some of them are quite niche in nature, however, and it is clear that more mainstream investments which can meet the terms of the commercial mandate should be explored. For example, is there more we can do in relation to investment in broadband through ISIF? There are many unbuilt roads nationally which we know are to be tolled. Would they meet the terms of the commercial mandate? Similarly, a certain amount of housing has been provided in partnership with funds. Should we be doing more in that area? Public transport passengers pay fares and, as such, investments in this area can be commercial if they are properly constituted. We should be doing more across all of those areas. Having €2.7 billion committed is not the same thing as having €2.7 billion invested, as the Minister knows.
We should give credit where credit is due. It is a very recently established fund, having been set up in 2014. By the end of 2016, an investment of €7 billion in total had been committed. That is the direct investment and the funds triggered by it. It is a significant chunk of money. When one compares it to the overall capital programme, €7 billion is a significant investment. As it moves on from successful investment to successful investment, the fund will attract more co-investors and the scope of investment in the kinds of projects denominated by Deputy McGrath will come into play. The fund is currently investing in housing and construction, SME credit, venture capital and equity funds, connectivity, renewable energy, water provision, forestry and agriculture. As such, ISIF has a significant portfolio. While there is always a concern to ensure that sufficient investment takes place, that is matched by a concern to ensure that scarce money is not wasted on bad investments. While there is a pool of over €6 billion available, ISIF is prudent and exercises, as it must, the double mandate.
There is no question that ISIF must be prudent, but I highlight again the fact that it has €6.6 billion invested overseas. Gradually, that will be wound down and invested in Ireland. While it is an important feature of the fund that it leverages private sector investment, the key challenges we face as a country are in housing, broadband, the road network and public transport where the fund has not done a great deal in terms of its portfolio. ISIF goes after a lot of niche investments, leveraging the private sector. I would like to see more mainstream investments which are visible and which enhance the productive capacity of the economy. Many of these areas of investment can meet the terms of the commercial mandate. I look forward to the investment strategy review and I would appreciate it if the Minister would bear the points I have made in mind when he considers and addresses it.
The Deputy's submission is very reasonable. However, infrastructural investment is divided between social investment and investment in economic infrastructure and it is difficult to be certain of an income stream from the former whether it is schools, health centres, etc. It is also the case that while there is potential in some economic investment such as tolling certain roads, there is no potential in other stretches of road to generate a return. The public private model has worked to some extent. ISIF has made significant progress and I am sure it is aware of this debate today. It is certainly progressive in its thinking and anxious to do more but it is also aware that it has to act prudently and within the mandate.
38. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to recent media reports regarding the report by a charity (details supplied) noting that 16 of the top 20 European banks operating here are paying an effective tax rate of 6% or less and that this is well below the levels outlined by the Government and IDA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16514/17]
What are the Minister's views on the recent report by the Oxfam charity noting that 16 of the top 20 European banks operating in Ireland through the IFSC and so on are paying an effective tax rate of between 2% and 6%, which is well below the corporation tax rate of 12.5%? Is the Minister concerned at such blatant tax avoidance or evasion using Dublin given that the Government has sought to defend its international reputation by pointing to its work, particularly when the Labour Party was in government, to ensure that we supported the OECD tax reform process?
I thank the Deputy for her question. I am aware of the report which was published by Oxfam on 27 March. The report makes a number of comments about the level of tax paid by certain banks in respect of their operations in each country of operation, including Ireland. The report also asserts that 31 different jurisdictions, including Ireland, should be considered tax havens. I understand that the report relies on publicly available data published by banks under the capital requirements directive, CRD IV. The report takes this data and uses it to assert the effective tax rate suffered by banks in the countries in which they operate. While I will not comment on the tax affairs of individual taxpayers, there are a number of reasons that using this data to assert a company's effective tax rate may create a misleading picture.
Calculating a company's effective tax rate requires looking at a company's profits as calculated under Irish tax law and the amount of tax charged on those profits under Irish tax law. This information is not included in the public country-by-country reports. For this reason, caution is needed when using the country-by-country information when commenting on a company's tax affairs. For example, the profit figures filed in the CRD IV reports generally relate to profit calculated for accounting purposes. Companies, however, do not pay tax on their accounting profits, but rather on their taxable profits. There are a variety of legitimate differences in how these figures are calculated in each country.
For example, all capital expenditure is treated differently for accounting and tax calculations.
Similarly, the tax on profit or loss figure in the publicly disclosed information may relate to tax actually paid over to Revenue rather than the tax charge suffered by the company. For example, where a company has losses carried forward from a previous year, this would reduce the amount of tax that must be paid over but does mean the company is not subject to a tax charge on its profits.
Officials in my Department are examining the report in more detail and have arranged a meeting with Oxfam to discuss the report's contents.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
I would like to point out that all companies in Ireland pay the standard 12.5% rate on their trading profits which are generated in Ireland. Higher rates of 25% and 33% apply to certain profits. My Department has previously worked with Mr. Seamus Coffey, who is currently conducting a review on the corporation tax code, on a technical paper to provide clarity about the seemingly conflicting figures and methodologies for the effective rate of tax paid by companies in Ireland. This paper found that the effective rate paid nationally is between 10.3% and 10.7%.
I strongly reject the report's suggestion that Ireland is a tax haven. There is no clear analysis as to why Ireland would be considered as such and we do not meet any of the vague criteria that the report suggests are indicative of tax havens. The report itself notes that international institutions, such as the IMF and OECD, do not consider Ireland to be a tax haven.
As the Minister knows, and he has been quite concerned about it, Ireland's reputation on tax is a very tricky issue, particularly in the context of Brexit. There has been a demonstrable attack on Ireland by various figures from the Commission, and other countries in the EU 27 have made comments on Ireland's tax position. I thank the Minister for the detail in his answer, but it is extraordinary that banking companies which broadly utilise the IFSC for investment banking purposes in a regime where corporation tax is a very attractive 12.5% would be able to achieve a tax rate of between 2% and 6%. This is not good news in terms of what this country has said in respect of our very genuine participation in the OECD BEPS process.
Thank you, Deputy.
The Minister has not actually denied what is in the Oxfam report. He has made various equivocations on the Oxfam report. We all know the profit calculator for tax for accounting purposes is rather different, but over time the Minister knows, or his officials have told him, in fact this washes out.
Thank you, Deputy.
Yes, a capital expenditure can be claimed upfront, but ultimately the differences wash out. I am very disappointed in the content of the answer.
We will go back to the Minister now.
Will the Minister make available a detailed briefing on this issue because it is central to our reputation?
As I said in the course of my reply, we have invited Oxfam to meet the officials to discuss in detail the claims it is making. I agree with the Deputy that a lot of adverse comment has been made about Ireland and the tax regime of 12.5% here. A lot of this is driven by those who compete with us for foreign direct investment and it is not true. Many of the comments by certain Commissioners is misguided and based on a misunderstanding. On the other hand, we have lot of statements, principally from the OECD, which has confirmed that Ireland is to the forefront of its tax reform agenda and that Ireland certainly is not a tax haven and does not subscribe to any of the features of a tax haven. Clearly there is a risk of reputational damage from reports such as this, and my officials and tax people would like to meet Oxfam so it can justify the claims it has made-----
Thank you, Minister.
-----and point out to us anything we should be doing if its claims are justified.
In terms of the direction international tax affairs are going, the discrepancy between a 12.5% rate and a 2% to 6% rate for foreign banks, which I suspect are largely registered in the IFSC, is very large, and in his reply the Minister seemed to concede this. We deserve a more detailed response on what is actually causing this. I know timing can affect the difference between effective tax rates and rates per accounting profits, but what is it that these companies are doing that they are able to reduce their tax to 2% or 6%? Do they have some extraordinary level of capital or equipment investment which allows them make large capital write-downs?
Thank you, Deputy.
How can they be doing this in Ireland, given that they do not by and large, as far as I am aware, have a retail presence in Ireland? This is deserving of a very detailed explanation to the Dáil.
I have not agreed at all that the arguments in the Oxfam paper are accurate. What I have said is I am inviting Oxfam to meet my officials so the details of its case can be discussed. For example, Mr. Seamus Coffey, the academic from UCC who is now chairman of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, carried out some work for the Department two years ago, effectively to establish if there was a differential between the standard 12.5% rate and the rate paid by companies. His technical paper found the effective tax rate paid by companies was somewhere between 10.3% and 10.7% against the nominal rate of 12.5%. This is the most recent academic research I have available to me. I am not agreeing with the Oxfam data but I know its source and some of it has been misinterpreted. Oxfam may have insights to bring to bear on this so my officials will meet it.
39. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance the number of UK-based financial services infrastructure providers that have been met by Irish officials; the number that have agreed to move all or part of their operations here; the number of jobs this entails; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16550/17]
When it comes to jobs, Brexit is mainly about risk mitigation and protecting as many jobs as we can. As we all know, sectors such as agrifood, tourism, retail and manufacturing are under very serious threat. One area of potential opportunity is financial services, and maximising not just the number of jobs that come over but their sustainability and the total benefit to the sector requires a very strategic approach. This means we need to attract the full ecosystem of financial services. How many infrastructure companies in financial services have been engaged with by the State, how many have agreed to set up operations in Ireland and how many jobs will be associated with this?
Since the decision of the UK to leave the European Union, the contingency planning by international financial services firms has increased significantly given the uncertainty surrounding the eventual outcomes. This planning involves examining current business models and information gathering to assess the potential post-Brexit scenario. As part of this information gathering, many firms have been in contact with Government Departments and agencies and the Central Bank. These engagements with officials at home and abroad have involved firms engaged in a wide range of financial services activities. IDA Ireland, which leads our efforts to attract additional financial services in line with the IFS2020 strategy, has dealt with in excess of 100 queries from businesses about locating in Ireland.
In my role as Minister of State with responsibility for financial services, I have visited London, Asia, North America and other locations on a number of occasions. Furthermore, the second European Financial Forum, which I hosted, was held in Dublin Castle in January to showcase Ireland's offering to an international audience, and highlight the Government's commitment to the development of international financial services. An Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, provided the opening address. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, attended the closing sessions of the forum and gave the final remarks. In addition, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor, gave the afternoon ministerial address.
Recently, St. Patrick's Day trade missions saw the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and 27 Ministers and Ministers of State take part in more than 100 business events and high-level political meetings in 27 countries. As part of this, I visited Canada and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, visited Malaysia and Singapore.
Once a relocation recommendation has been made by senior management in a firm, the Deputy will appreciate the board of the firm will have to agree the decision and, in due course, shareholders and current regulators will have to be informed before the actual decision can be made public. Until these steps have been completed, it is not possible for IDA Ireland or, indeed, myself to give any precise information on the potential movers post-Brexit.
The Minister of State and I would both accept the question I asked did not get addressed. Ireland is an obvious location for financial services firms looking to set up in the EU. We have a common law system, we are English speaking, there are close cultural similarities and there is a big multinational presence here. More and more, the big firms are deciding not to come here. We see announcement after announcement that they are deciding to locate elsewhere in the EU.
This is partly because IDA Ireland has not been given sufficient resources. It has been given nine extra people. To put that into perspective, The Guardian newspaper has a Brexit team of nine people. It is partly because we are missing some of the key skill-sets. We should be hiring people who are senior financial services players in the UK for a year or two years to come here and help us with this. It is partly because we lack a strategic approach. I ask the Minister of State, specifically on the numbers, what interaction there has been with the financial services companies in the UK, mainly based out of London, that specialise in providing financial services infrastructure to the market.
Financial services infrastructure is a very important part of this piece in terms of future-proofing our Irish financial services, IFS, offering, as the Deputy points out. When we look at certain parts of infrastructure and the potential for it to relocate or establish itself here, there are only a few players in the market, so we cannot be precise about exactly what conversations we have had because it will potentially be quite clear which companies we have been talking to.
There are a number of different aspects to infrastructure. Are we talking about the technology and resources of particular entities or firms that are currently operating here? Are we talking about multilateral trading facilities, MTFs? Are we talking about central security depositories, CSDs, or central counterparties, CCPs? There were different elements to supports over the course of the last year. We have been engaging with different firms which are potentially looking at establishing a presence here or relocating a particular activity here. We are then talking to other companies that are not directly financial services companies themselves, but an element of their business is significant enough that they have a subsidiary that might be operating in a particular area, for example, for payments.
We have the IFS2020 strategy, which is a five-year strategy for increasing our international financial services offering. We worked with industry to develop that strategy. As a result of having that strategy in place since 2015, it meant we were ahead of the game in attracting financial services firms into Ireland to allow that continuity of service into the Single Market. Not every company that relocates out of the UK is going to come here. We have to be honest about this. There is going to be a flow to this. From the meetings I have already had and from the decisions that have already been taken by companies, there will be a strong flow to Ireland. It is up to the companies themselves to decide when they want to notify the public, their customers, their staff, shareholders and regulators in jurisdictions in which they are currently based. When they do that, then we will be in a position to comment publicly about that. Companies will be relocating here, but they will also relocate to other jurisdictions in Europe.
Here is the fear. The IFS strategy basically said that we are going to make two big plays. One is in financial technology, FinTech, and one in another place. Post-Brexit, it was taken back into the Department and it came back out Brexit-proofed. If the pre- and post-Brexit versions are compared, they are pretty much the same. It still says two plays, which is FinTech and another one, which escapes me. Brexit presents a big opportunity, which is now different, which is to say that we are not just going to try to get insurance companies, reinsurance companies, trading firms and so forth. There is a real opportunity to say that we can bring the entire ecosystem over to Dublin or wherever it sets up in Ireland. One of the reasons London is so strong is because it has the full ecosystem.
A core piece of this is the infrastructure. The fear from financial services players in Dublin is that we might bring some of these firms over, but because we do not create a sustainable infrastructure around them, in time they might move to Luxembourg, Frankfurt or elsewhere. The information I have from very well-placed people within the industry is that the infrastructure firms are not being approached by the State and need to be. The infrastructure firms are saying that they are being wined and dined by the French, the Belgians and the Spanish and by Luxembourg, and they are not seeing sight nor sound of the Irish. Nobody is saying that the Minister of State is not busy. We know he is busy. My sense is that we could be more strategic, more clever and have a strategy that encompasses the full ecosystem so that when we get these firms over here, they stay here and grow rather than relocating here temporarily.
We share the same ambition here. I like to think that all parties in this House share the same ambition when it comes to the potential opportunities that might come from Brexit. There is no point in being busy if it is not for a strategic objective. I have met with some infrastructure providers on a number of occasions. It is part of the strategy that we are developing to make sure that every opportunity that might come from Brexit is there and available to us to take advantage of. Companies will make relocation decisions based on a number of factors. We have heard we are coming in the top three of companies' potential relocation options across the board. They will pull a trigger for this jurisdiction, but they will also pull it for other jurisdictions and for other legacy reasons, for example. One big international bank has decided to go to Paris. It made sense because a legacy acquisition 12 years ago meant it already had the authorisation for its banking licencee. If one looks at the action plan for 2017 under the IFS2020 strategy, there are two component parts. The first component part is the Brexit narrative, talking about contingency planning, communications, the Central Bank piece in this and other areas like International Baccalaureate education and what we need to do. The second part is the 40 individual action points and how we are going to address them just in this year alone. There is the matter of IFS and how we plan to grow it for the year. Some points are very Brexit-related and some are less directly so.
No one individual ecosystem in international financial services is going to relocate to another jurisdiction. In insurance, for example, not all insurance companies are going to go to one place and it is good that they do not. It is good that they operate from different jurisdictions, in different markets into the Single Market when they can. The skill-set and having the people here are very important to us. That is why one of the pillars of those 40 action points in the IFS strategy for this year is looking at education, trading and skills development, and also attracting Irish emigrants back home into these high-level jobs that are being created, not just in Dublin but also Cork and other parts of the country.
