Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can buy into that analysis. We made a freedom of information request for some of the Minister's briefing documents on the issue of overheating. One of the rationales for the rainy day fund is to prevent overheating. It is almost being put up as the only solution. When the EU Commission made a number of recommendations, particularly on how to prevent overheating, it mentioned investment, reduction of debt, broadening the tax base and preparing for the demographic pressures, which Professor Barrett touched on in terms of health. It focused particularly on our childcare system and the investment in it, the investment in adult education, as well as dealing with the mortgage arrears issue. It did not mention a rainy day fund. We heard the spending drift mentioned and that when we get unexpected income, we should not spend it but should put it into a rainy day fund. Is it not true that it depends on what it is spent on? If it is spent on social welfare payments there is an impact on that when the economy takes a dip but what if we spend it on trying to avoid issues that may overheat the economy, such as plugging the skills gap? We are talking about employment being around 4% but we still have a youth unemployment rate of approximately 12%. We still have issues around the lack of investment in childcare and in certain sectors in the economy. Is it not fair to say there are plenty of other options available to prevent the overheating of the economy and it does not always have to be that when we get the additional income or reach the balance targets, whatever the balance is, that anything in excess should be squirrelled away? Is it not also fair to say that we could put things into capital investment and that in itself would prevent overheating?