Dr. Nat O'Connor:

I wish to comment on a few issues. In regard to the stimulus, we stress that we propose investment rather than stimulus. One can do lots of things in the economy and have a short-term stimulus, but what is important is that the strategic investment fund is put into areas such as home retrofits, broadband connections and the retraining of people who are long-term unemployed. This would have a long-term effect on the economy in terms of our future growth path and also have a short-term stimulus effect.

With regard to the rental market, there is a problem where people who bought to rent are in arrears. However, giving them a tax break that will keep them in that limbo situation will not resolve that. We now have insolvency procedures to help bring about a resolution for people in that kind of debt. This should proceed so that housing goes back into the housing market and becomes available. Only then will we get a more plentiful and cheaper supply of housing. Continuing to provide a tax break for a rental market that is not working will not improve the situation. There is a need for many other improvements in the rental sector, such as stronger tenancy protection and the need for larger institutional landlords to play a role. Now, because we have a housing stock through NAMA, there is an opportunity to try to create this, but this would fall under a different policy area. I agree there are serious issues in the rental sector, but a tax break on passive income does not improve the situation. Doing away with that could release valuable funds for other areas.

The nutrition tax would amount to approximately €100 per household per year. We would not see this as an exorbitant tax, but it would still bring in a significant amount of money for the Revenue, approximately €188 million by our calculation. We see this as important taxation, but it would not be an onerous burden in terms of the household grocery bill.