Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to stay on the point about the need for a contingency fund as opposed to a longer-term rainy day fund. In its paper provided to us, the Parliamentary Budget Office pointed out what it referred to as mitigating risks. In other words, having the cash on hand to react to events such as flooding would improve the State's capacity to deal with that after the event. It also refers to immediate investment in preventing those events such as flood defences. How do we achieve that balancing act? Has the Minister given any consideration to that? That would also question the need for a contingency fund. Would the Minister see the need for the contingency fund but also the investment? Last week, the Minister of State in charge of flooding stated that approximately €1 billion would be needed to complete all the current flood defences and those proposed for the future.

The second question relates to the withdrawal criteria for a rainy day fund. One aspect the briefing paper highlights is the way the criteria would be written into legislation. The Minister said in his contribution that for a longer or medium-term rainy day fund, he might have to consider primary legislation in terms of the criteria and how we would access it. An issue the paper raises is the need to put that on a constitutional footing. It references the National Pensions Reserve Fund, which was designed to do one thing but which, when the crash happened, was diverted. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?

The final question is on the objective formula-driven deposit criteria, which are mentioned. What does that mean and how would it work in practice? For example, if there was a significant increase in certain tax receipts, is it a formula or a percentage of those increases? What type of formula is the Minister considering?