Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will convene a meeting of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board during his next visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21430/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 10 November 2004
Ceisteanna (4, 5, 6, 7)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the arrangements in place within his Department for maintaining contact with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21431/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of his Department in conjunction with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24125/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the contacts in place between his Department and the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board; if he intends to convene a meeting of the board during his next visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26387/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (23 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, together.
The practice over the past number of years has been to hold a meeting with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board in the course of my St. Patrick's Day visit to the United States. As a result of pressure on my schedule arising from EU Presidency commitments at the time of my visit last March, I was unable to meet with the board as normal. I, therefore, invited the members to visit Ireland, the first time they had done so since 1998.
A delegation made a very successful visit here from 8 to 10 September. Engagements included meetings with Ministers, management representatives from State agencies, such as the IDA, and senior officials from a number of Departments. As for my involvement, I had a meeting with the delegation and hosted a working dinner for the delegation in Farmleigh.
My Department maintains contact with the board primarily through our embassy in Washington, as well as through annual visits and meetings. As the House will be aware, board members give voluntarily of their time and expertise in a number of ways. They play important but discreet roles in promoting Ireland's interests and in assisting the Government and State agencies, such as IDA Ireland. The next board meeting has not yet been scheduled but I hope to hold a meeting in the course of my next visit to the United States.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. The Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board has a potential that has not been exploited to the full. I noted that after the presidential election in the United States, the Taoiseach indicated that it was preferable that President Bush be returned instead of Democratic candidate John Kerry. The Taoiseach indicated that had Senator Kerry been elected, he would have had to lobby against tax proposals from the Democratic Party.
In the context of what the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board might be doing, does the Taoiseach consider that the homeland repatriation Act being introduced by President Bush will have a serious impact on American multinationals based in Ireland? He will be aware that the impact of the Act is to allow American multinationals to return assets and income earned abroad to the United States. Some of the very big players in Ireland include Intel, Dell, Microsoft and so on. Does the Taoiseach consider that a serious risk to economic investment in Ireland and, as a consequence, to jobs?
Does the Taoiseach foresee a time when, with over $1 billion crossing the Atlantic in trade each day, there could be an EU-US free trade area which would have phenomenal potential for investment both ways? For instance, experts point out that there is now more European investment in Texas than total US investment in Japan and China combined. Some 60% of US overseas investment has gone to EU states and it is expected to reach $120 billion in 2004. Does the Taoiseach see that type of concept as one we should pursue? In that regard, would he be amenable to use the good offices of the newly appointed EU ambassador to the United States, former Deputy John Bruton, to concentrate on the possibilities that exist in that area?
The newly appointed ambassador, John Bruton, and the large staff in the EU agency in Washington will give us opportunities. I said that to John Bruton and we will work closely with him through the Irish Embassy and our contacts there. He has a job to do on behalf of the EU, but we have much experience and expertise in many of these areas. All we want is to feed in our views, like every other country, and he must deal with them on an even-handed basis. He will do that very well but we have an opportunity. There are many areas where the EU and the US Congress and Senate can work effectively together. The reason for this post — I was involved in discussions on it in Nice — was that a leader was needed who would have access to the US Congress and Senate and who would be able to speak to people. That is an important aspect. There are many suspicions in the US Congress and Senate about EU trade and WTO issues. Unfortunately, often what the House committee says about EU issues is quite argumentative. I have no doubt John Bruton, having an astute political brain and an understanding of economic trade matters, will be able to assist. That is a good development.
I did not say I would prefer George Bush to win. I did not say who I would prefer to win.
That is what Albert said too.
I had no vote in that election. I gave the pluses and the minuses of both individuals and said some very nice things about the Democrats and John Kerry. I said one interesting thing which was not picked up in this country during the campaign and which I will repeat, namely that if that tax regime had happened, there would have been a hit as a result of the repatriation of money. Perhaps through lobbying it might not have happened but the hit would have been very severe for the 1,000 or so companies here. I do not think President Bush's proposal will create too much difficulty. That is the assessment which has been made.
The big issue we must watch is the ability of this and other European countries — proportionately for us it is far higher than anywhere perhaps with the exception of Finland — to be able to continue to get the levels of foreign direct investment from the United States unimpeded. That remains the strong position for next year. We are still in a good position with many companies and I hope that will continue. We always need a fair wind from whatever administration and an understanding of the significant role of multinationals here and those in other countries, which can look after themselves, to be able to continue to develop employment.
The advisory board is enormously important and its members are strong political supporters of both sides of the divide in the United States. We have good friends on both sides who are prepared to assist us, to talk to companies looking at coming to Ireland and to make the Irish case, to arrange meetings with the IDA and to give us access. They do that very successfully, not to mention their own businesses, people and investments here. We are lucky. We work with approximately 40 people on the economic advisory group. They do not always attend meetings but they are there to assist us when we need them, across a great range of businesses. They are extremely important and many of them have been very helpful in terms of many things in Ireland. In many instances they do not seek credit and in fact frequently get annoyed when they are even mentioned in this regard. I respectfully say that some people have been around a long time and are now moving towards retirement within their respective agencies. We are appreciative of their efforts and work but need to come in contact with the newer Irish-American chief executives. A considerable amount of work has been done towards targeting this group within the last year, not to replace the people with whom we currently deal, but rather to make newer contacts also. It is quite extraordinary that many of the Irish who went to America in the early 1980s are coming to the top 20 years on. Many of these people have no great association with Ireland, other than to come here for a holiday or two. The plan is to get them into the framework for the future, because they will be the key people for the next decade or so. We have been targeting many of those people, not to replace anyone, but to add to the existing group.
Has the Taoiseach noticed any downturn in investment or indeed, interest, in the Irish economy, on the part of American investors or interested potential investors in recent times? I ask the question against the backdrop of comments and remarks by some of his Front Bench Members who have speculated there would be a loss of interest and even a flight of investment from Ireland because of the clear and overwhelming rejection by the Irish people of the US invasion of Iraq. I have not noted any such signs and I wonder whether the Taoiseach has.
As regards the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Kenny vis-à-vis his remarks on the re-election of George Bush, I believe he contextualised his welcome of this outcome on the basis that the policies to have been pursued by Mr. John Kerry would have led to disinvestment in Ireland. Is the Taoiseach aware, and it is my information, that there is similar speculation as regards the same proposals being explored and examined by President Bush? Is he aware that what caused him some concern as regards the Kerry campaign might also be reflected in the Bush camp?
I would like to share a light note with the Taoiseach. As he is aware, Ohio is populated in the main by an Irish émigré population from County Mayo. What small contribution this might have had in the overall outcome is that after the all-Ireland result they could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry.
Ireland has done enormously well under both the Clinton and Bush regimes as regards inward investment, and I believe this will continue. The only thing that could scare that off is the belief that we could increase corporation tax to 40%, and this is raised all the time. They want certainty over the period of investment and any sounds of tax increases scare them. That is the reality, but I do not see anyone seriously adopting such a position. It would be unwise since the reality is that if investment and activity are increased, a higher share of tax will result, in any event, regardless of the 12.5% rate. To raise this to 40% would give out all the wrong signals to multinational companies.
They must have been talking about corporation tax. Nobody is talking about corporation tax. Nobody that I know of——
Does the Deputy know who Robbie Smith is? He is the general secretary of the Deputy's party, and he spoke about it last week.
The Taoiseach is mixing up capital gains tax and——
The Deputy must allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.
Robbie Smith must know less than the Deputy about that party's tax policies.
I ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption and not to be provoking Deputy Ó Caoláin.
On the investment side, it is not the same provision. John Kerry is a fine man, but his side made a particular reference which it continued to repeat and had a position paper as regards targeting repatriated profits in a way that would have done major damage to the Irish economy. There is no argument about this, it is a fact. The Bush proposals, on the other side, we believe would not have necessitated substantial hits for this economy. Obviously, as I said last week, if Mr. Kerry had been elected we would have lobbied our friends, Chris Dodd and Eddie Kennedy, Congressman Crowley and all the others who have been very helpful to us, but that proposal as it stood and even as it was raised in the last few days of the campaign, would have been devastating for us. All I can say about President Bush on that particular aspect is that when he was here at the EU Summit, he went out of his way on the networks of American television where that press conference was carried, coast to coast, to state the advantages of investing in this country. That was worth a great deal to the Irish economy in advertising time. He has spoken to Ireland's credit to many of the people close to him and to many of the large American companies based here, as President Clinton did previously.
Will the Taoiseach say if the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board had any part in advising him as regards the effects of President Bush being re-elected, or what the outcome would have been if Mr. Kerry had been successful? Would it not be more beneficial for Ireland to refer to the OECD figures rather than talking about the tentative nature of corporation tax, which has been in place at the current level for quite a while? Is it not more appropriate in terms of foreign direct investment to talk about Ireland being highly profitable for US companies, profits having doubled between 1999 and 2002 while they decreased throughout the rest of Europe? I was told by US companies that Ireland was the most profitable location for foreign direct investment, but I understand that Bermuda might be slightly more profitable. However, would it not be better to repeat that message rather than talk about corporation tax, given that the outcome of any investment decision is based on profit rather than location?
No member of the economic advisory group has ever mentioned to me, or I am sure to anybody else, a preferred presidential candidate. The group comprises Republicans and Democrats and there were no comments, letters or issues such as this raised. They work together within the economic advisory group and are extremely helpful. They were here in September and made absolutely no comments about the election of a party political nature, apart from expressing general interest in the campaign. The reality is that for a small island on the periphery of Europe Ireland takes the lion share of American investment. It is equivalent to what China enjoys and is tremendously beneficial and important, strategically, for employment, investment and everything else. These investments are made over 20 to 25 year periods. The bio-pharmaceutical plants, for example, talk about where they are now and where they will be in 2025. That is the type of scale they are looking at and they seek certainty and policy consistency as regards the bigger issues.
While the companies are profitable, they are also here because of our tax rate and our education system and, in many cases, because Irish people encouraged them. As Deputy Kenny knows, one of the finest Coca Cola plants in the world is in Mayo. To be bluntly honest, it is not there because it is profitable but because the top two people involved are Irish and wanted to do something for Ireland. In many other instances Irish people intervened. We are in a unique position in terms of the past, the present and the future, and should do nothing to jeopardise it.
When I saw the Taoiseach's statement on the lobbying campaign he had prepared in case Senator Kerry had been elected President of the United States of America, I marvelled. Over the years I have been watching the Taoiseach, I have never seen a contest on the right side of which he has not come out.
That is right. He has dexterity.
I would have thought that as a social democrat like me, the Taoiseach would have supported Senator Kerry while the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and nine or ten other Cabinet members would have supported the neo-conservatives.
The Minister was on the Ralph Nader side.
Clearly, I was wrong. As I do not understand from the exchanges to which I have listened, will the Taoiseach explain what was the feared net differential impact on Ireland of the tax policies advocated by Senator Kerry and the measures signed into law by President Bush three days before polling? These measures implemented a special 5.5% corporation tax rate to suck back the profits of leading multinationals from other countries. What is the perceived difference? If there will be a significant impact on Ireland, it is as likely to be major under the Bush measure as signed into law as under the one advocated by Senator Kerry.
It is critical that the persons who serve on the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board, which has the real interests of Ireland at heart, ensure where possible that US companies continue to site their European or world headquarters here. If possible, at his next meeting with the board the Taoiseach should table a motion of continued interest in much closer relationships between our universities and American business. It is through research, innovation and patenting that jobs will be created for future generations of Irish workers. The Taoiseach should make this central to his discussions with the board.
While Deputy Rabbitte wishes to record that I supported President Bush, I never intended to say, nor should I, who I supported in the campaign. Deputy Rabbitte would not have been too surprised at my views as I watched the votes being counted. While that is my private view, at the end of the day I would have had to work with whomever was elected. As it happens, I never met John Kerry but I know most of the senior members of the Democratic Party. I remain very close to both Senator Ted Kennedy and former President Clinton. I never met George Bush before he became President and have been dealing with him for the past four years.
The difference on the tax position, to which I did not refer during the campaign, is that companies to which I spoke saw President Bush's proposal as an incentive to bring money back to the USA and the Kerry proposal as a penal measure. Companies were not concerned about how the incentive proposal would work but they were very concerned about the penal one, including those whose representatives were Democrats. It is for that reason we would have argued the case. Some of the larger companies which Deputy Rabbitte knows were very concerned as they felt there was a certain philosophy behind the Kerry proposal which might not be that easy to move on. Its effect would almost have been to stop them moving investments out of the United States of America by penalising them for doing so. Rightly or wrongly, that is how companies saw it and were concerned.
We are now spending a large proportion of revenue through Science Foundation Ireland on research and development, linking up our universities and working with our professors. There are major opportunities but it will be a long haul and will take several years to build a catalogue of successful patents. We are actively engaged in the work the Tánaiste started, which will be continued by the Minister, Deputy Martin.