Mr. Gerard Brady:

Yes. One of the ways the fiscal space is calculated is examining the potential growth rate of the economy looking forward and backward over a ten-year period. What the Government has chosen to do, and this has not been imposed by Europe, is instead of using the 26% GDP number in 2015, it has used a 5.5% growth number that essentially has been made up - 26% is what happened to GDP. We are saying that an extra €400 million would be available in fiscal space this year which we believe the Government could use and still come very close to reaching its medium-term objective, MTO, and achieving a structural balance below 0.5% of GDP. We believe an extra €400 million is available and that it could be used for infrastructure and freeing up resources for Brexit.

To deal with the Deputy's second question, we have examined many examples within our own companies of how much they will have to spend to diversify from the United Kingdom market. One of the big issues they are facing is that in the worst circumstances, if things go very bad in terms of a hard Brexit, they will lose UK market share very quickly and it will take six to ten years for them to build up market share elsewhere in Europe. In that intervening period, companies that might be viable now and in six years if they diversify will not be viable in the period in between; there is a type of valley of death effect in that regard. That is where we see the need, in terms of support from Government, to make sure those viable companies - we are not asking it to support unviable companies - get over that. The way the Government can help is to invest in the capital expenditure, innovation and Brexit mitigation measures, which will allow them to gain and keep competitiveness in order that they can maintain UK market share for as long as possible, as well as trade and finance supports to allow them diversify as quickly as possible. That is what we are looking at.

In terms of the quantum, as Mr. O'Brien said, we said there would be approximately 5% of indigenous exports annually over a period of three years or so. It would be approximately €1.2 billion. That could be through low-cost trade finance, direct supports for innovation or capital allowances, for example, for companies looking to increase their productive capacity and competitiveness or through less direct supports such as better tax conditions for small and medium enterprises, SMEs, for example, which are well behind the UK. That need is there, and we are hearing about it loud and clear.

The danger from an Ireland Inc. point of view is that, as Mr. O'Brien said in his opening statement, we have always seen our indigenous sector as captive and the multinational sector as mobile. In terms of the feedback we are getting, and companies are currently deep in planning, they are saying it is very difficult to diversify in that it is hugely expensive, massively risky and takes a great deal of time and that it would be a better business decision and a more economic decision if they moved or contracted out capacity to the UK in order that they can continue to serve the UK market as they have always done but within the UK. That would mean loss of part of what is probably the most productive part of our indigenous sector to the UK over the coming years. That is not helped by the fact that parts of the UK, and particularly north Wales, still have state aid status, which allows them to offer much greater supports to indigenous manufacturing companies in particular.

We are in a fight that has to be recognised in this budget. Otherwise, we will lose at least some part of the most productive part of our enterprise base.