I wish to begin by expressing my own condolences and those of my party to the family and friends of the late Emma Mhic Mhathúna on this, the day of her funeral.

Yesterday the Minister for Finance and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform formally advanced the proposed rainy day fund. There are still many unanswered questions about the fund, and not for want of asking. The Government has simply failed to provide the answers. Let us recap. The Government wants to take €1.5 billion from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, which is essentially our national reserve fund. It wishes to put this money into a new national reserve fund to be called, as a gesture of prudence, the rainy day fund. Is this not just relabelling? What is wrong, in the Taoiseach's opinion, with the existing strategic fund? What would the difference be between this new rainy day fund and the strategic reserve fund we have? The Government wants to place a further €500 million from tax revenues in this new rainy day fund. Why is the Government really setting this up? Is it to be a new fund to bail out the banks in the case of another banking collapse? What is the fund intended to do? This is a specific question. Is it to be a reserve fund to be deployed if we have another collapse in, say, tax income - for example, if the corporate tax base collapses? If that is its objective, how does this fit in with the fiscal rules, which, as the Taoiseach knows, are procyclical and do not allow for countercyclical funding? I have read with some care the design of the rainy day fund as published, the working paper. Its conclusion is quite simple, that is, that the fiscal rules need to be changed in order to do that much. What is the intention of the fund then? Where will the money be invested? Will it be invested in the same ways as the strategic investment fund? Why can the Government not just leave the €2 billion, if it so wishes, in the strategic investment fund? If not, who will manage it? What is the cost of managing a separate fund? Does the Government intend to invest it overseas or in the domestic economy? This money should be allocated to build affordable housing that could actually generate income back to the State over 20 or 30 years. This would allow us to invest in a great deal of houses. The rainy day is now for so many people seeking affordable housing. The notion that we have money to set aside idly when 10,000 people are homeless is simply bad policy. I ask the Taoiseach to set out in very clear terms straightforward answers to these questions.

Primary legislation is required to establish this rainy fund, and I believe that will be the opportunity for the House to engage in detail on how it will operate. I am not in a position to answer all the questions the Deputy asked today, at least not until such time as-----

Before the Government sets aside the money, should it not answer the questions?

-----we have the legislation. Obviously, the legislation will have to be put in place before we put any money into the fund, so the Deputy will have ample opportunity to examine it when we have the primary legislation. The concept, though, I can explain. It is to take €1.5 billion currently in ISIF, use it to establish the rainy day fund and add €500 million to it from tax revenues every year. We are identifying corporate tax revenues, corporate profit tax, in particular as the source of that €500 million. We have a concern that corporate tax revenues are unusually buoyant and may not be there next year or the year after, and we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. Ten, 12, or 13 years ago, the country was run on stamp duty and VAT receipts from a booming property sector. When that sector collapsed, there was a massive hole in our budget, as a result of which we had years of austerity. What I want to do is set up the country in order that that never happens again. We will therefore have a rainy day fund-----

Which the Government cannot deploy in those circumstances.

-----of €1.5 billion from ISIF, with €500 million added every year from corporate tax revenue. If we run into economic problems, whether as a consequence of Brexit next year, changes to international taxation, trade wars or anything else that could tip our country into a downturn, a recession, I want to have a fund available that we can use to stimulate the economy. I do not agree with the Deputy's interpretation of the fiscal rules-----

I can read them out again to the Taoiseach.

-----in this regard, by the way. I want us to break out once and for all of this boom-and-bust cycle that we have in Ireland. What we should be able to do in times when the economy is growing well, tax receipts are buoyant and we have full employment is balance the books and put money aside that we can then use to stimulate the economy if there is another downturn, if there is a slowdown or if we run into problems with Brexit. This is what we are doing.

That is what we could not do ten years ago. As a result of bad economic management and bad planning, we ended up with years of austerity. I want to make sure that in the next downturn, whenever it comes, because it is inevitable, we will not have to cut pay, raise taxes or reduce welfare because we will have a fund we can dip into to use as a stimulus for the economy.

The Taoiseach has admitted it is a con. He will set up a strategic rainy day fund. We already have a strategic reserve fund; the ISIF has €20 billion in it. The Taoiseach has not explained the difference between that and the new fund. This is about taking money from our strategic reserve fund, relabelling it and pretending it is a new fund. He says he will deploy it in case the corporation tax base collapses or some other shock happens. He should ask the experts if he can get over the fiscal rules which, as I have explained, do not allow for countercyclical spending in exactly the way the Taoiseach has explained. They state that "a clear template of how a countercyclical fund [exactly as the Taoiseach has explained] might operate has not emerged". They go onto say that they need to change the rules and "To address this, we propose two relatively modest adjustments to how RDFs are treated by the fiscal rules", which would need an amendment to the Maastricht treaty. Does the Taoiseach propose to embark on a negotiation for a reassessment of the fiscal rules, fundamentally to create a con job whereby the Government will create a new fund when it has €20 billion in directed and undirected funds in the ISIF which it can deploy if it wants to? We urge that the Government deploys at least €5 billion of that fund to address the housing crisis right now.

The Deputy is speaking to a document which I have not seen. If he would like to pass it on to me, I would be happy to take a look at it and perhaps give him-----

It is entitled "Designing a Rainy Day Fund to Work within the EU Fiscal Rules".

I am glad the Deputy has now told us which document he is referring to.

It is from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC. Does the Taoiseach not read the council's reports?

Yes but it is only this second the Deputy has told me which document he is referring to. To answer the Deputy's question-----

Was the budget created without reading the IFAC's analysis-----

To answer the Deputy's question, ISIF is different from the rainy day fund. ISIF is tied up in certain types of investments, sometimes land, long-term bonds or businesses. We wanted the rainy day fund to have something more liquid which can be deployed more quickly if we need to do so.

Does it just stay on deposit?