It is proposed to take No. 16, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kingdom of Belgium) Order 2014 (back from committee); No. 17, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income and Capital Gains) (Kingdom of Thailand) Order 2014 (back from committee); No. 18, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income and on Capital) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) Order 2014 (back from committee); No. 19, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Botswana) Order 2014 (back from committee); No. 20, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kingdom of Denmark) Order 2014 (back from committee); and No. 5, Registration of Lobbying Bill 2014 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, shall be decided without debate and shall be moved together and decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair. Private Members’ business shall be No. 160, motion re direct provision. Tomorrow’s business after Oral Questions shall be No. 5, Registration of Lobbying Bill 2014 - Second Stage (resumed); No. 6, European Stability Mechanism (Amendment) Bill 2014 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage; and No. 30, Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2014 [Seanad] - Second Stage (resumed).

There is one proposal to be put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive - motions re proposed approval of double taxation relief orders 2014 for the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Botswana and the Kingdom of Denmark - without debate agreed to?

It is not agreed. The Taoiseach is proposing to ram through the House without debate double taxation relief agreements with five countries on the day that the European Union Commission, which is as right-wing and neoliberal a body as one could find, says that successive Irish Governments have allowed Apple, a major multinational, to siphon off billions of euro from the Irish taxpayer into private corporate profits to satisfy corporate greed? This is being proposed on the very day we are told that an average family of four over-18s will have a new water tax in this State of almost €500 per year. Irish Water says it will be €483 for four people aged 18 or over, based on data that Irish Water has not shared with us - we do not know where it comes from - which states that the average usage is 88 litres per person per day, when the two major studies sponsored by governments show an average usage of 148 litres per person per day, and Denmark, which is by far the most efficient country, has a usage of 114 litres per person per day. There has been a very significant under-estimation of usage. From tomorrow, families of four and more will face anything up to €1,000 per year in a savage new austerity tax to continue the bailout of bankers and bondholders.

I do not want to let this proposal go through without debate. I want a debate on why this Government allows multinationals to walk away with billions when working-class people, low and middle-income workers, students, pensioners and the unemployed are saddled with a savage new austerity double taxation. I agree with double taxation relief agreements, but let us start with the Irish taxpayer. When this week will the House be afforded an opportunity for a major debate on this new draconian imposition on our people and on tax fiddling by multinationals? Then we can agree to the proposal.

We are dealing with the proposal for the first items.

These are specific double taxation agreements which do not relate to the broader debate about international and global taxation models. However, I asked before the summer recess for a comprehensive debate, because there seems to be a determined effort to undermine Ireland's ability to have an independent taxation regime which is fully in compliance with international tax law. We cannot sort out the world on our own. I have witnessed over the years the prevarication on climate change and the global inability of countries to sign off on agreements designed to copperfasten a regime for dealing with climate change. How are we to anticipate that the same will not happen with regard to a very tight and equally applicable global taxation regime? If that is the case, we need to be careful about how we proceed. I remind the House that 166,000 people work in multinationals in Ireland.

Hear, hear.

Some Deputies tend to ignore that in any contribution they make on this subject. A total of 4,200 people have been working in Apple in Cork city since 1981, in good-quality jobs-----

If small businesses pay tax-----

Small businesses get a lot from the multinational companies in Ireland in terms of bioscience, life sciences, instrumentation and service provision. A raft of industries have grown as a result of that multinational investment. It is a bit more complex and subtle than it is sometimes presented in this House, and we need to be careful. The OECD is an important body but it does not have international jurisdiction; it is an advisory body which can make recommendations and undertake research. However, I am conscious of the fact - and surprised - that of late it has become the stormtrooper-----

That is because Deputy Martin did the deal.

-----for the G20 countries. That is because some of them are strapped for cash now. It is not our fault that the United States has the tax regime it decided to have-----

-----and it does its deals-----

We are not having a debate now.

-----with China and it will do its deals with Japan and with Asia, just as many other countries will do.

Joe wants us to be like Cuba.

We may have to reform, but should we do so on our own, oblivious to the actual realities of the global economic model, whether we like it or not? There is much I dislike about globalisation - wage rates across the world, the absence of any conformity with health and safety requirements and the lack of any adherence to consumer rights.

Let us introduce a dose of realism to this debate. I put it to the Taoiseach that the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, was out of order at a Conservative Party conference to have a cut off Ireland-----

He should keep out of our business.

He was completely out of order. Let us be under no illusion that all the Prime Minister wants is our jobs. He wants the 166,000 jobs that are in this country to go to the United Kingdom. He wants Apple in the United Kingdom.

That is enough.

The anti-inversion laws in the United States are motivated by British moves in recent times, such as the patent box, which the Commission is also investigating. The British Government needs to look at its own house before it starts lecturing Ireland. I hope the Taoiseach will give that message to Mr. Cameron in no uncertain terms. I have no difficulty-----

Deputy Martin, in fairness, these are brief contributions. We are discussing the proposal for dealing with Nos. 16 to 20.

I oppose Deputy Higgins's proposition.

The Deputy should cross the floor-----

I will allow this proposal on the basis that we have a comprehensive debate on the overall issue of the international tax regime, the global tax situation and our strategy in responding to the most recent OECD measures and the moves of the G20.

We need to know the direction in which this matter is going and must adopt a cautious approach to it. The Commission has issued an opinion and there is a long road to travel in respect of it. Let us not just accept everything with absolute acquiescence.

Deputy Micheál Martin can just tell us what was involved. His party did the deals in question.

And not one word about the €500 families cannot afford to pay.

These matters were discussed by the Select sub-Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform last week. The select sub-committee did not take a vote on them. Ireland has double taxation agreements with 71 countries. It is important to state it participated fully in the discussions which took place at the European Council meeting on the OECD's response on the base erosion profit-shifting issue. While I have a very good relationship with the British Prime Minister, I am aware that the Tory Party conference is taking place. The OECD's report is now available and decisions must be made on what is the best option to take. The Minister for Finance is giving very careful consideration to that matter.

It is true that 166,000 people work for multinationals with operations in Ireland. I had the privilege of opening a section of the Apple plant in Cork, at which an extraordinary number of very highly qualified people work. The same applies at other locations throughout the country. We should not forget this.

It is important to say - regardless of whatever decision is made - that the report did not focus to any extent on the rate tax involved - 12.5%.

That is because it is never levied at 12.5%.

In Ireland's case - as is the position with all other countries - whatever global decisions are made and when the elements beyond the corporation tax rate are stripped away, there are still exceptional opportunities in terms of our talent pool, track record and technology. I have no problem in conceding to a comprehensive debate on this issue which is fundamentally important in the context of the economy, lines of foreign direct investment and exports. The Whip will make the arrangements for the holding of such a debate when it is appropriate to do so.