Mr. Sebastian Barnes:

I think the ESRI probably has a better view on targeting. To be clear about targeting, the constraint is that there is only a certain amount of money the Government can put into the economy without triggering inflation or raising questions about fiscal sustainability. Therefore, within that, support should targeted at those who need it most. Exactly how one defines that is an inherently political choice on which the council does not have a view. To be clear, we do not just mean targeting the very poor. It is probably support that could go more widely in the economy but how far and to whom is a political question I will not get into.

Regarding corporation tax, which we discussed with Deputy O'Donnell, the link is not that mechanical.

If we did not have that money, we would also have the scope to borrow if we wanted to. The question is whether that is a good idea. The real question to ask is what is the correct policy in respect of managing the cycle and not triggering higher inflation. We must also have a view to fiscal sustainability. We have been talking about temporary measures, which can be financed either through borrowing or the excess corporation tax, since we have it. However, the amount of corporation tax we have does not determine the right level in that regard. Of course, it would be a big mistake to finance permanent measures such as raising welfare or pension rates through corporation tax. Those are permanent commitments that would be called into question in the event those amounts of corporation tax were no longer available. That is important.

At the end of his contribution, Deputy Boyd Barrett raised a very good point, which was also relevant to the points made by Deputy Doherty. Considering the medium term for the public finances, we advocated for and welcome the Government's 5% spending rule, which should keep spending on a steady path in normal times and ensure that the economy is properly balanced. It ensures the maintenance of the public finances on a sustainable path. We often highlight in that context major challenges such as the ageing of our population and climate change. Those are challenges that will have to be paid for because they are going to happen. We need to plan to deal with those issues. The Government needs to plan how it will deal with those issues and it is not doing so at the moment.

There is another point we may have been understating and this is a good occasion on which to discuss it. There are many other needs in the economy that we do not necessarily have to deal with in a mechanical sense, examples of which include health and housing. People have expectations, and society faces challenges, in that regard. Investment in schools is another example, and there other similar kinds of things. The Government also needs to think about these areas. Such considerations raise questions about the Government's spending priorities and what level of tax will prevail. These are big questions. As I say, we tend to focus on the things the Government will have to pay for, such as people getting older, but there are many other things the Government should be doing that are less mechanical than, for example, the costs associated with our aging population and climate change. All these things need to be thought about and addressed, and some difficult choices will need to be made in the years ahead in that regard.