Richard Boyd Barrett Challenges Taoiseach on Apple Tax Ruling

Thanks, Bernard. Yeah, I want to challenge what the Taoiseach said earlier on in relation to the Apple tax ruling, because what the ruling clearly states is that the tax rulings made by revenue were ineffective and inconsistent, okay? Nor do they contest that the level of chargeable profits that was taxed was totally out of line with the amount of tax that would be paid anywhere else under normal market conditions. In other words, the court accepted that Apple were involved in aggressive tax avoidance and that they were doing it here. The only thing they said is they couldn't quite prove that this inconsistency, this ineffective, this incredibly low tax rate that they were enjoying through aggressive tax avoidance strategies was a deliberately conferred advantage on that company, because that's a difficult thing to prove. But the point is, we were being used as a tax haven, and the revenues rulings were inconsistent and ineffective, and unless we think revenue are stupid, and I don't think revenue are stupid, Taoiseach, it was clear that we were colluding with those tax avoidance strategies. Thank you, Deputy. And I think it's shameful that we've done it, because what we've actually done is put the interests of a wealthy, super wealthy corporation ahead of the interests of ordinary people who could badly do with that 13 billion euro in cash. Thank you, Deputy. And Taoiseach. In relation to Deputy Nash's questions first, in terms of the conversation with the British Prime Minister. Specifically on Brexit, he said, we both agreed that it was in the best interests of all of us, United Kingdom, Ireland, and Europe, that a comprehensive trade deal would be agreed, and that we needed to get moving and get momentum into the talks, because in my earlier conversation with Michelle Barney, the sense was that momentum hadn't yet been injected into the talks, and they needed to make more rapid progress than they had been making up to now. So the British Prime Minister was very much taken with the idea of getting a deal done that would be comprehensive, and that would be good for the future relationship between the United Kingdom and Europe, and it would be tariff-free and quarter-free. I obviously made a point that it would have to be subject to, you know, the access to the single market and a level playing pitch. So that was the nature of discussion. It remains to be seen. Still slow enough, the talks. There's some progress on the Northern Ireland Protocol, and also, you know, there needs to be more progress in relation to the other key issues that have held up the talks to date. In relation to my conversations with Charles Michel and with the President of the Commission, sorry, Angela Merkel, I think you raised, and the size of the overall package, the Chancellor was very much of the view that she was anxious that a deal be done at this Council meeting. I said we supported the overall size of the package, that we felt that Europe needed to make a response, a significant response given the crisis we are in, and that that was important for confidence across Europe. We export to countries all over Europe, and it's important that there's a strong Eurozone and European recovery because that would benefit Ireland. I think there's a 50-50 chance of success. It's not going to be easy. Some countries are very much against the size of the package. Some countries are against the whole, you know, the nature of what has been proposed. But the progress has been made, and I think the most recent negotiating box put forward by Charles Michel has reflected some of our concerns, particularly in terms of a Brexit compensatory fund. Also in terms of the idea of changing the allocation key in respect of 70-30% now will be used later in terms of the impact of COVID. So it will take some time. In terms of Deputy Barry, no, I didn't raise the issue of the ample judgment with the President of the Commission, nor did the President of the Commission raise it with me in relation to that, because obviously that was a matter for the courts. But what I would say is that, look, the court has ruled. We either have regard for the rule of law or we don't, or the courts, or we don't. And I've heard Deputy Boyd Barrett's remarks as well. It's as if the court didn't rule at all. Like the court annulled the decision of the Commission, and essentially saying that Ireland didn't collect any tax to which it was not entitled to. Nor could we collect tax that we're not legally entitled to. And I would also make the point that the idea that, you know, there are 6,000 people working in Apple now. That matters. They're ordinary people. They never get mentioned. They never get mentioned. And the relationship with Apple is, from 1980 onwards, has been a strong one between Ireland and Apple. And Ireland has to live in the real world. And I happen to think that, I think that the, you're looking at about 245,000 jobs in this country, have been created by multinational companies. That is not insignificant. Those are ordinary people working in those companies. And we've had to compete for those industries. Now, I do take the overall point that I said to Deputy Nash earlier, in respect of the global framework, and the necessity to work with the BEPS process, and to get a fairer system globally, in respect of multinational and corporations revenue. But we have to be sensible as a country too, in the sense that we have to retain jobs here. And these are kind of subjects that rarely get discussed in this house. It's always one directional. That's my, that's the basic argument I make to Deputy Barry and to Deputy Wye Barrett. The other side of the story never gets discussed. Ireland now is a much different country than it would have been 30 or 40, 50 years ago. We are very good at manufacturing, high level, high end manufacturing. We're very good in technology and software. We have a good indigenous sector. We have an emerging entrepreneurial sector. And I put some of that down, and quite a significant amount of it, down to the fact that there's been a significant spin-off, more than just money and funding and corporation tax, from the multinational presence here. And many of our companies have grown on the back of it, and are now themselves major companies as a result of it. And it very often depends on whether you believe in an enterprise economy or not. Now I happen to think that it has, we do need to change. We need to increase the level of focus on indigenous companies, and try and grow them more and help them more. But we equally have to be conscious that we are in a mobile global world, where other countries are competing. And we have to be wide-eyed about that, and not naive about it either. But I think I would agree with what Deputy Nash said earlier. There's other issues of skills, education, research that can help to attract people in, and embed them here as well. And, you know, I don't accept the assertions made that somehow, you know, you're now changing the goalposts in terms of what the court did or didn't do. The court was asked to assess, was there an illegal state aid, and a certain deal done by Ireland with Apple. And the court has annulled that conclusion that the Commission came to some time ago. That's in essence what has happened. No, it's open to the Commission to appeal that. And I think they have up to two years to appeal that, and the funding will stay in the escrow account. And in relation to Deputy MacDonald's questions in terms of the pandemic unemployment payment, I will pursue that. I'll examine that with the Minister concerned. Things are never as simple as they're presented in relation to issues of this kind. I think, to be fair to the outgoing government, the pandemic unemployment payment, which we all agreed with from the opposition, party leaders all agreed, was an important intervention to protect livelihoods, and does involve huge resources, as did the wage subsidy scheme. And it got refined over time, as anomalies emerged in relation to the application of both schemes. So I'll certainly have that examined.