Mr. Philip Kermode:

With regard to tax competition, since 2000 we have lived, in the Union, with an accommodation for harmful tax competition. That is in line with what I said earlier about the code of conduct and predatory ring-fenced regimes.

If we look at it from the point of view of extremes, we either have no competition at all, which suggests we all do the same thing, or we can have more virile competition. One of the things that has driven us over the years is the desire to have a degree of simplicity in systems to support business. If individual jurisdictions continue to attack one another on the basis that they do not like the other countries' tax systems, we create more barriers to business and it is the opposite of what we have been pushing for in the Internal Market. We do not see why we should be encouraging barriers built on protective measures. It underlies the thinking of the jurisprudence of the court. People have differing views on where the lines on competition should be drawn. We have a clear indication of how important the EU, and the OECD and the G20, consider this by the fact that the coming to an accommodation on harmful tax practices is a key element in the BEPS process. It conditions the acceptance by others of the elements and standards that need to come together so that people can work together. At the risk of repeating myself, we do not want to see the situation becoming ever more complex and costly. That would not be in the interest of Ireland or the Union, with its significant place in world trade.