Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

The Taoiseach said he will make available whatever response the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, made to President Sarkozy's statement. I am not disputing that President Sarkozy is aware of Ireland's position in respect of the rate of corporation tax. That has been well trawled and was stated at the time of the Lisbon referenda. The significance of President Sarkozy's statement is that he is linking Ireland's rate of corporation tax to the availability of financial assistance from the European Union institutions. As we know, the EU-IMF deal contains a penal rate of interest for Ireland which was a political decision. My concern is twofold; one is the hostility to the Irish corporation tax rate, which is already well established, but the other is the linking of that and the influence it may have on the rate of interest which is applying to the financial assistance that is available. There are two aspects to it. I look forward to seeing what was the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Roche.

In respect of the advice of the Attorney General, I understand his advices are available only to Government in respect of Government business, but this is a matter which relates to the amendment of the EU treaty, which might require a referendum to be held. Therefore, I suggest to the Taoiseach that the Attorney General's advice on this occasion is an advice that should be more widely available than just to the Government itself. Specifically in that context, the text which was agreed at the Council meeting contained a change from the original draft that was discussed. The change was that the financial stability mechanisms would be "activated if indispensable". Why was that change made in the text? My understanding is that change in the text was made at or just before the Council meeting. What is the significance of that change in the text? Where did the change in text come from and what does it mean? Will the Taoiseach make the Attorney General's advice more widely available given that it relates to a constitutional matter on this occasion?

See this speech in context