Mr. Carlos Martínez Mongay:

Coming back to Brexit, I have made the position clear. Nothing is decided until everything is agreed. My personal reassurance here is not relevant. All I can do is remind the committee that there was a first phase of the negotiations in which the Irish Border was a key issue, among the three most important issues. Now the negotiations go on. Mr. Barnier reports back to the member states and he travels to the different capitals to inform and maintain contact. I have nothing more to add on this.

Concerning infrastructure and the social income, there have been several questions relating to the same issue. I have answered them indirectly. First, the key issue is that the Commission does not decide composition. Composition is Ireland's business. It is up to Ireland to decide which part of the expenditure goes where; it is not up to the Commission. The Commission can recommend certain areas which we consider to be our priority in the country.

Second, the Commission does not establish the level of structural expenditures or the level of structural revenues. The rules say that member states should achieve what we call "structural equilibrium", which means a structural balance that simply allows automatic stabilisers to operate, and does not create any pro-cyclical fiscal policy, either in good times or bad times. However, it is up to the member states to decide on the levels of expenditure and revenues. By that I mean that one can perfectly comply with fiscal rules by setting certain levels of expenditure and setting the corresponding level of revenue. It is up to the national parliaments to decide the spending they want to carry out and then set up the corresponding level of revenue.

What the Commission is saying, not only to Ireland but to almost every member state, is that revenue has a volatile component. This volatile component, which depends on the cycle, and in the case of Ireland, depends on the role and activities of multinationals, can disappear in the same way it appears. It should not, therefore, be allocated to finance permanent expenditure. This is the reason the Commission says that next year, Ireland should in principle achieve the medium-term budgetary objective, MTO, that is, equilibrium in structural terms. Now it is up to the Irish to decide their level of expenditure. I cannot remember the figure exactly, but let us say it is 22% and the Government would like to spend 27%. The Commission is saying that Ireland should look for a way to finance this additional 5% of GDP in a permanent way, with permanent revenues, that is, structural revenues. The Commission is not telling Ireland that it is spending too much or too little or how much it should spend on every item; that is up to Ireland to decide. The Commission is telling Ireland that given its cyclical position and the fact that it is growing above its potential, these additional revenues should be put aside to be prepared in the case of a slowdown, to avoid needing to go to the markets for additional money when the markets are closed or not ready to lend much money.

The need for infrastructure, which the Commission clearly recognises, has been mixed up with the need to create a buffer. The buffer can be created. The Commission is not exactly recommending the rainy day fund, although we support the initiative. The Commission is telling member states - not only Ireland because there are other countries in the same situation with booming economies growing above potential - that extraordinary revenues should be allocated to reduce debt.

The less debt there is in a slowdown the easier the access to the markets.

Concerning Apple the answer is simple. Apple is paying the €13 billion to the State but it is in an escrow account, which means that the money cannot be touched until there is a decision of the European Court of Justice. Fortunately, in the European Union we are under the rule of law. The Commission decided that Ireland had in place a selective tax system and was giving some competitive advantage to a given company. Ireland opposed the decision, as was its right, which is the beauty of the law, and now we have to wait until the court decides who is right and who is wrong. If, for instance, the court decides that the Commission is right, this money can be spent by the member state because it is revenue it should have received in the past. It is possible that the court will decide the Commission was not right for reasons I do not know and then the member state should surrender the money. So for now, this money cannot be touched but it will be there.