Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I have two questions. The Taoiseach appears intent on causing confusion about one of the key elements of the agreement he signed in Brussels. I call it "clause 4". I do not have time to read it all out but will read the first few bullet points, the first being: "We are intent on establishing a new fiscal rule." That is an enormous step - to bring in a new fiscal rule. The most important part of the document continues: "Such a rule will be introduced in member states' national legal systems at constitutional or equivalent level." This is the third time I have raised this point with the Taoiseach. In his statement today, the Taoiseach announced that the Government is examining this requirement. He did the same yesterday in response to my question, speaking very carefully, in particular in regard to how this dovetails with the fiscal responsibility Bill now in preparation.

What does this mean? Does it mean the Taoiseach is not sure the 0.5% deficit limit will be brought in through primary legislation? In that case, the primary legislation is being given the same status as the Constitution. The Taoiseach must explain this to us. I presume he had advance notice of all these issues because of the preparatory work going on, the bilateral talks he told us about that involve his senior officials, and so on. I presume he had prior legal opinion on this. Would he like to share it with us?

I believe the Taoiseach agrees with me on my second point. It is the lack of growth in this country and in the EU, which is the single biggest cause of the ongoing crisis in the eurozone. That is also the biggest challenge facing our people and the Government, with the need for investment in jobs, the retention of jobs and the need to stimulate our economy and get people back to work. However, this subject was not on the agenda. Did the Taoiseach speak to this issue? At the Council meeting did he call for growth and investment to be part of what was planned in the time ahead? This is particularly to the point given he tells us all the time this is his number one priority. If he did not speak to this issue why did he not?

See this speech in context