Dr. Tom McDonnell:

"Human capital" is a terrible expression. It is a technical one that we use to fit the matter into an economic model. Sometimes, we use it as a term to encourage policy makers to think of something as being good for the economy in the long run, but what we are really discussing is flourishing individuals and their ability to thrive in the world, which also tends to make them productive workers.

The point of the child care subsidies is not to devalue people who choose to educate their children themselves. Rather, it is that second earners and lone parents should not have barriers preventing them from having a real choice about whether to return to the workplace.

For us, it is about choice. It is not about devaluing or demeaning those who stay at home in any way. I have immense respect for that. I would not for a moment underrate it. The single most important thing is the family environment. A child will only spend about 12% of his or her week at school. If we are talking about human capital, the single most important thing we can do is prevent childhood poverty. That means family income supports and other supports. Indeed, our work suggests that the emphasis in terms of education spending would be on disadvantaged groups, preventing people from ever falling behind. I would not want people to get the wrong impression.

My colleague will be able to give the committee a better steer on average rates of pay for child care workers and primary teachers. That is something we could calculate in terms of fiscal space if the committee would like us to. The other question is how we would pay for it. We would do so out of the upcoming fiscal space, which is about €10 billion after 2021, not counting demographics and price pressures which will eat up about half of that. Otherwise, we would increase taxes.

I was asked how I would have voted on the property tax. The Nevin Institute does not make explicit political statements such as how we might vote on particular issues.