Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

There has been an effort to explain it as the impact of inflation across society. We know from experience and, more importantly, from data, who is most adversely impacted by high prices and inflation. It is rural dwellers, lone parents, and those on fixed and low incomes. The stickier this becomes, the more impact it will have on those groups that, as Deputy Boyd Barrett said, are least capable of absorbing the hit.

IFAC, the Central Bank, the ESRI and others have raised concerns about the way what could be characterised as non-core expenditure has been presented and accounted for. How would IFAC account for that? It has become a feature of the system over recent years where we have capital expenditure, core expenditure and then there is this new phenomenon called non-core expenditure. As I said here yesterday, it seems this Government seems to know more about the conduct of the war in Ukraine than Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy about how it will unfold. Whether we like it or not, and we would like this to end more quickly than seems likely, we are likely to be accommodating those who are fleeing war in Ukraine for quite some time, there are going to be additional costs, and we will pay for that. It is how we account for it. There is a bit of a con job going on here, is there not? How would IFAC account for the non-core expenditure, as it is described? Would it simply describe it as core expenditure and bake it in?