Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I support the motion. I agree with my colleagues, Deputies Noonan, Clune and Creed, who stated that it is a shame the Government could not see its way towards supporting the motion and felt obliged to table an amendment. I am reminded of the spider's invitation to the fly: "Will you walk into my parlour?" The Government is seeking our support in respect of the budget on the basis that it is the patriotic thing to do. This is a time for patriotism, for putting the country first and for national solidarity. That is precisely the reason we tabled the motion. We want the national Parliament to send out a clear message to the EU, the IMF, the markets and all potential investors that the 12.5% rate of corporation tax is essential to this country and that it must not be changed because it has been the cornerstone of our industrial policy for some years and is our best hope and probably our only hope of recovery in the context of repaying the kind of debt that now hangs around our necks.

By tabling this motion, Fine Gael wanted to provide certainty, clarity and comfort to those overseas businesses which have located their operations here and which may be considering making further investment in Ireland. We also wanted to provide encouragement to those who are considering investing in this country, especially as it is, I hope, beginning to become more competitive again. It is a pity Fianna Fáil, even as it seeks to spin us into its web by obliging us to accept its budget, in its parlour and on its terms, has reverted to type.

The fact remains that clarity and certainty are still required, particularly if we are not to stem completely the flow of inward investment into this country. Such clarity and certainty are needed very soon, not only in the context of corporation tax but also in respect of all the conditions surrounding the bailout. Fear of the unknown is corrosive to any business. It is obvious from radio and television commentaries that confusion abounds about the role and function of the European financial stability facility, EFSF. Many people appear to believe this facility is great and is similar to a benign uncle who has come from Europe to give us a dig-out.

People have approached me and said that it is great we can borrow again. It probably is great to some extent that we can do so. Being able to borrow does not mean, however, that it will again be party time. Further debt could just prove to be another millstone around our necks. The answer to too much debt, which we now have, is not necessarily access to more borrowing, especially if we do with the money we obtain precisely what we did with our money in the past, namely, pour it into the black hole that is our banking system. If we do that, we simply pile more debt onto the backs of the taxpayers and we will never regain our financial independence.

What are the conditions of access to this contingency fund? We have been told by the Government that the corporation tax rate is not a condition. Perhaps it was never even in question. If it not a condition, what are the conditions? What is being negotiated on our behalf? What will the next Government have to implement? What will we have to administer? When will the memorandum of understanding be published? What are the conditions that are precedent to any aid disbursement?

In the Greek case, the memorandum contained details of the maximum loan, the price, the duration and the number of instalments, but also the targets that were to be achieved and the methods of monitoring the targets and how programme performance would be measured. Also, crucially, it outlined the economic and financial policies that the borrowing country must implement in order to strengthen market confidence and, of course, to restore the financial and fiscal position.

Our objective should be to minimise the amount of borrowing and not regard the EFSF as a crock of gold into which we can dip and which somehow obviates the need for us to get our act together. Before that view takes hold - it will be very difficult for any Government in the future to govern if it does - there is a high price, in terms of cost and conditions, on this money. We want to know what are the conditions and whether they are realistic, acceptable and achievable.

Maintaining the corporation tax rate, which probably was never at risk in any event, is not an adequate negotiating position. I understand for all sorts of political reasons the Government highlighted it as something that might be taken away from us. In the preparation of the memorandum of understanding, if that is not one of the conditions, we need to know what the conditions are.

See this speech in context