Mr. Joe Durkan:

It is a multiple of that fund. This allows the Norwegian Government to behave sensibly and it seems to have figured out how to do things correctly. Switzerland is in an odd position in that it pegged its currency to the euro and it probably should have appreciated gradually over time. It had competitive advantages over the rest of the EU, which are gone because the currency appreciated phenomenally when the Swiss broke the link. One could even see a big shake-out there. Their position was maintained by low wage inflation and competitive advantages in the short run, which look like they are gone. Let us see what it will be like.

The UK always has been a competitor with Ireland for FDI. It is not just about the tax system and tax credits; it is also about the fact that it is a big market. Any firm that wants to locate abroad also thinks about the size of the market. The reason we are so lucky in attracting many of these companies such as Apple and Google is we speak English and we have reasonably good communications. It is also quite clear what can be done with the tax system here is favourable to these companies. I do not see them readily moving to the UK. We are easy in terms of immigration. When firms such as Google need foreign workers because they cannot get them in Ireland, we allow them in. The UK might be a little trickier in the context of immigration.

There was a question about immigration from the Commonwealth and the EU. Much of the immigration from the Commonwealth has more or less ceased and most of the immigration into the UK is from the rest of the Union. When the direct control the UK had over many of the African countries stopped, migration also stopped. That was part of the deal.

Agriculture is tricky. The UK may do something about its existing industry and there is also the possibility of changing policy. It has been suggested that the country might go the New Zealand route and abolish subsidies entirely. If that was done, the likelihood is British agriculture could expand rapidly. It is a little like us and the milk quotas. Once they are gone, there will be a huge expansion in production and processing capacity. I suspect if the British got rid of the constraints on them, farmers might start producing as farmers. In New Zealand it was unexpected but they knew that they could not continue giving subsidies to farmers. They stopped doing it and suddenly the sector blossomed. The problem for us and the UK is that we have missed the boat in some respects. It will be hard for us to get into the Asian markets but there is a risk the UK could free up its agriculture industry and let farmers do what is necessary. If it did not do so, it could go the deficiency payments route, which would be bad for us.

The only way to avoid that is through the negotiations that the UK will have with the Union. We have to ensure it cannot bring in a deficiency payments system. If it does, then we should not give the UK freedom of trade in other sectors. That would be my solution to that. Business looks after itself.

Deputy Seán Crowe asked about the IFSC being a City of London satellite outpost. I have never really seen it as such. The original motivation behind it was that the City of London and Wall Street were operating at capacity and Dublin was ideally placed between the two to pick up bits that were related. Also, the firms operating in the IFSC reflect a wide variety of interests. The IFSC was not just picking up bits related to activities in London, it also had other things to offer. We had German and Irish banks set up within the area and I do not necessarily see that aspect being affected. The City of London could easily be marginalised. Let us remember London is outside the eurozone and that if the United Kingdom was not in the European Union, there could be opportunities, rather than threats, for the IFSC. These guys are very good at their jobs. We know the financial sector is very good at coming up with new products - although not always great - and I imagine such endeavours would continue.

I was asked about a timeframe. The timeframe is long because it would take Britain a good few years to negotiate an exit and a few years to negotiate trade agreements and so on. Therefore, one is looking at the early years of the next decade.

The final question was about a financial transactions tax. The City of London and the United Kingdom are opposed to such a tax. If a financial transactions tax was to be brought in in the rest of Europe and Britain was outside the European Union, financial business would move to the City of London. There is no question about this and it would be bad news. Everyone would have to sign up to it, or nobody would.

I listed the questions asked and think I have answered all of them. The last question was from the Chairman.