Dr. Tom McDonnell:

The Commission recently made two decisions - one active, one inactive - about reducing our fiscal space. One was on how to calculate the structural position in the economy, which costs us more than €1 billion in fiscal space per year. The other is on not using the 26% growth figure. While changing how that is calculated was probably a good decision, it was a unilateral one.

It would be safe to use the €150 million. Such are the pressures on child care and housing that it would be foolish not to do so. Given the losses in terms of forgoing reduced interest costs versus the gains in terms of child care, education and so on, it speaks to using that money.

A point was made about how it would be better to save the money in the rainy day fund. Presumably, that fund will go into an account somewhere and generate interest. The alternative is to invest it in the economy whereby it will generate jobs, tax revenue and, in the long term, a stronger and more robust society. This is not about the profligate spending of money. Rather, it is about investing. The rainy day fund will be going into a low-interest account somewhere or it will be invested in shares in companies or pension funds around the world. Either way, the money is invested or saved, so I am not sure that using the fund is necessarily the best choice. That said, I agree with counter-cyclical fiscal policy. Hence my points on tax cuts. From a macro or fiscal hawk perspective, I would not be overly concerned if that €150 million was spent.