 Felly, y byddai Gymru Gymru ym Gomysgol, rhai hyn arnyn ni i fynd i'r ysgol y ff�lau 5, i ni i newid ein fan o'n gwneud o gallu ei wneudio, am y dyfodol ar gyfer y ffrif. Ond o'n gwneud, mae wedi gweld ar y cyfrifodau yma, ydych i'n meddwl am fwy o'r gofynnwyl ac yw dyfodol. Mae'r ysgol y byddai dyfodol, yr ysgol yma, yn ddysgu'r gyrfa ar y gofnydd yma, ychwanegwch o ddyches y canegwch, oeddiwch y ddweud y 5 gwesti lisio, gobiwch i gael gyda'r ddweud o maelch oпаol. Maelch yn ffysg ar hyn o'n rhan o'r culot i ni, mae'n gwisio ymdrygu'n gwneud ystod ond mae'r roots o'r wneud o'r trwy'r gwrdd y gall yn gwneud ond yn y ffordd deffaswr hwnnw, ffordd y Llyfr yn 2008 a 2009. Mae'r thangos eraill, mae'n ffordd y ffordd... ..令odd yn y'n gwneud o erbyn o'w iawn o'ch 12 o rhai oed gwybod i charmyn yn enw. Fy dyfyn najbardziej maen nhw'n dri per cent. Felly yn yhyfrb mae'n dweud o fenol yma, drwy dwy bydd yn gallu meddwl bod'i ddechrau e hyd wedi sabwn ni'n winniol. Mae'r morth yn ôl ei cael iddo r Republicio. Maen nhwai yn MC i ddim estava o phchidfarghad ruriaed MBEE mwy blannu ac a'i gopym y diwedd 해. amd-a-nw'r astyrwyddiol, y cyfnodd yn geisio yn cael ei ddweud i gyrdwyddiad o'r ddweud. Felly, mae'n dweud yn cymdeithasol y ddefnyddio'n gweithio. Dyna'r ddweud, yw'r ddweud yw'n gweithio yn cael cael £2 bilion, ond mae'n olygu yn ei ddweud, yn ei ddweud i gyrddiad, mae'n ddweud i gydag, yn ei gyrdd, mae'n ddweud i gyrddwyr. mae'n meddwl yn gallu dorifio入an o'r ffordd mae'r hyfforddi dyma ac mae'n meddwl yn ymhyfyddiad Cwpwn Llywodraeth. Ty, mae'n paddwyd ar gyfer iawn, sgwr ymddug iawn ar gyfer iawn. A hynny'n meddwl fy wneud gofynol i groesgafl yn teimlo hwnnw, yn mynd i wef, whiff un o'r amser â chyfyddiad. Ond mae'n bobl yn hynny ar y gymryd. Pryddiad yn enw, yn 180, 9, 10 oed, bod ymhyfyddiad gofynol yn byw yn pot i gael ar y gymryd, nes rydym ni'n gofio'n cael y targed, ac ydych yn datblygu i'r 2015 yn dal. A oes, yr edrych yn ddaeth gyda'r cyfwyr, rydyn ni'n gwneud y byddai'r cyfwyr yn yngrifiad o gwybr wedi'u bwysigol. Yn y môl yw'r diwrnod, yw eich ddefnyddiadau o'r cyfwyr yn gweithio'r cyfwyr yn gyfwyr o'r cyfwyr yn cyfrifyddiad o 10 miliwn. Rwy'n ei wneud y dyfodill o'r mwyloed 21 o'n 2012, byddai'r 2014 o'r 2015 o'r ffygir o'r 10 miliwn 10 billion for interest was built into those budgets. It looks like now it will be about 8 billion on the massive public debt we've built up. By and large that's because of sort of help from our European partners in terms of reduced interest rates on the ESM, ESF loans, the changes in terms of the permissory notes, sort of has been a sort of reduction there that has helped. Some of that has been used, so it has come true in 2011-2012 and we have sort of used that over the last number of years, so for example last year instead of being a 3.1 billion package of tax increases and expenditure cuts, it was actually 2.5 billion with makey-upy figures of one-soft measures to get us up to a 3.1 billion figure we could sell internationally. So some of that has been used. John for example mentioned the expenditure ceilings and called them legally binding. I'm not technically sure what that means but the first time we had 3-year expenditure ceilings was in 2013, so it had ceilings for 2013, 2014, 2015. They may be legally binding but when it came to 2014 the expenditure ceilings were increased by almost half a billion. So we said in 2013 what it would be but behind the budget came the following year we upped it a bit and that was in part because of the space given from the savings and interest rates. Some to do with changes to do with the permissory notes which weren't necessarily savings but it did allow that bit of space. So there has been some flexibility over the last number of years being used. One issue with the permissory note is that no government or no member of the Department of Finance is going to say it was used for the deficit because it easily raised the eyebrows of the ECB and be linked to monetary financing but clearly some of the changes there were linked to things like that. On the statistical side there will be some help this year from the CSO but the deficit is a measure, a proportion of GDP and GDP is set to be revised up so regards of what happens to the deficit as a percentage you will become lower. Now the CSO are getting in a sense some stick for some of the changes reintroduced but by and large these things were happened 20 years ago and now we're only actually becoming about to be included so in terms of some issues in relation to the informal economy like when it comes to things like drugs, smuggling, prostitution. If you go way back to 1995 and what's called ESA in 95, the European system of accounts that was devised in 1995 they were supposed to be included in most countries excluded them simply because they couldn't measure them what numbers are we going to put in for things that are either illegal in formula or unseen so by and large were ignored. One country did put them in to make their GDP far higher back in 2006 and that was Greece and they had a big jump in their GDP figures back in 2006 but now Eurostat are looking for a more uniform application of rules from 20 years ago and so that countries are measuring their GDP in a similar pattern. One reason for this of course is that our contribution to the EU budget is based on a measure from our national accounts so if you do bump up your GDP to make your deficits a bit lower it does cost you more in terms of EU contributions. Eurostat are looking for some consistency there but by far the most significant change that's coming introduced at the moment is a change in terms of research and development so a lot of the focus has been on the informal and illegal activities but the biggest change will be in relation to research and development that is moving out from being a uh intermediate consumption so it use resources that firms had to be an actually now called production it makes things so before R&D was part of the costs in national accounts now it'll be included as an output so firms made something the R&D and the production costs were included and the only output measured was what they made now what Eurostat are saying is well R&D produces intellectual property you get ideas you get patents you get things that are valuable so R&D will move from being sort of part of the production process to to leading to value-adder output and that will lead to a big bump in GDP maybe around one and a half or two billion so you'll have R&D expender taken out of production or taken out of intermediate consumption and put into value-adder so that will help not massively maybe around 0.2 percentage points so if that wasn't there a budget might get you to 3.2 percent now with these changes coming in from the CSO it'll get you down to 3 percent and these changes haven't always helped if we go back to 2010 the CSO were revising GDP because the crash had happened and basically the CSO were just looking at the economy in much the same way we are trying to gather information that's available and they underestimated the crash initially and in 2010 they revised down GDP and revised it down substantially essentially they had sort of underestimated the crash in construction and it was only when sort of electricity connection figures were coming through from the ESB that they saw the scale of what actually had happened and said here we better bring GDP down and in that year overall there was a budget adjustment of about five billion and about one billion of that was due to the CSO revising down GDP that we had to stick to the excessive deficit procedure targets and once GDP went down it became harder to meet them so these things do tend to move in swings and roundabouts and one thing to note about them is that they're just level changes they're changes in terms of a number overall GDP they have no impact on growth so whatever to CSO are doing at the moment it's not going to make growth any higher or any lower and one issue with the excessive deficit procedure just include on that is it's very difficult to game it it's based on the overall deficit how much money do you take in how much money do you spend what's the gap between the two of those and the excessive deficit procedure is a bit of a straight track it we've by and large hit the targets in 2011, 12, 13, 14 and hopefully get below 3% in 2015 after that after that then has been mentioned we've become under the rules of the destability and growth pact the rules built into the the fiscal compact and they are gameable because they're based on something you can't see the structural deficit what would the deficit be if the economy was growing at its potential and what's the economy's potential pick a number and that's essentially it they will try to revise the methods of actually doing it but it is very difficult for Ireland so the commission themselves say what were the Department of Finance doing in this year stability program update how can we didn't tell us about the structural deficit I'm sure the fiscal advisory council will be on to the Department of Finance saying whereas your estimates for the structural deficit the issue is it's very difficult it is quite hard to put it a single number that actually represents that so when we exit the excessive deficit procedure it does become more pliable the excessive deficit procedure is a straight jacket they just look at the overall figure and see what the outcome is when we move out of that it will become more pliable also in terms of the debt break you might say well surely that's a straight jacket that is just based on your overall level of debt well there is a backward looking rule in that that says have you brought the debt down by sufficient amounts but there's also the forward looking rule will you do it in the future so if you've missed the targets last year build up the numbers say ash will hit the target next year and it doesn't matter for the debt break which one you hit did you fail last year we will succeed next year and that can be enough to satisfy the debt break which doesn't come into play in Ireland in 2018 in any event so from the broad macro perspective I think we'll still see the deficit being the number one objective and hopefully we'll see a switch out to more sort of normal sort of macroeconomic policy in terms of the performance of the economy at the micro level wound measured at the european commission of focused on and was mentioned by allen was the level of very low work intensity in Ireland now first of all what is that work intensity is essentially the proportion of time that adults in a house are working so you can take a 12 month period in that 12 months how much are they working if you work 48 weeks it's considered 100% and then you rank it down below that and you get different levels if you don't work at all at zero if you work half the time 24 weeks or at 50% very low work intensity is between naught and 20% so it's somebody that doesn't work at all up to maybe about 10 weeks just under 10 weeks just over two months in ireland the proportion of people under 65 living in households where there's very low work intensity is 24% so about a quarter of people under 65 essentially live in households where there's very little work now on its own what does that stat mean well the next highest in the EU we're at 24% the next highest in the EU is Croatia just a recent member so if they weren't in we'd be going lower again Croatia are next at 14% we're a massive outlier on this measure so they're 14% of people under 65 living in households with very low work intensity and then you go down through different measures the UK is about 12% and this is not necessarily down to unemployment even unemployment rate of about 12% there are countries in the EU with unemployment rates of 25 26 27% but they are below both Ireland and Croatia for this measure of very low work intensity and it's one that has been focused on if you look at income inequality in ireland we're sort of mid table whatever measure you use in terms of income inequality we tend to come out in the middle but there is one measure of inequality that we're worst and that is market income or earned income the highest level of inequality in the EU for earned income is in Ireland we plenty people earning and working we plenty people not some are part of the labour force some are in part of the labour force at all when it comes to overall income inequality the best system in the EU for reducing inequality is in Ireland our tax and transfer system improves income inequality by the most well you might say that's a good thing but one question is well why is it the worst to start off with why do we have to do such effort on income inequality to bring it from the worst for earned income to into mid table for overall income inequality and that measure of very low work intensity is important one issue is well do we want people working do we want people in households where we can't have people staying at home yes you do but you don't want people growing up in an environment particularly children where no work happens at all people are framed and sort of built around the environment they see and if they see an environment of very little work that can have long term negative consequences so I think the emphasis the commission put on the measure of very low work intensity is important and is one that needs to be addressed looking at why it happens is it to do with the system of social welfare is it to do with the system of the labour market to do with education and how to be proven the situation just to conclude I think this week and perhaps tomorrow in particular I don't think the European Commission's country specific recommendations are going to be the document they get the highest level of attention and I don't think it's probably going to be just one sentence in tomorrow's European Commission communicate that would be whether the the competition side are going to to launch a formal investigation relation to state aid and corporation tax the fact that this has been leaked beforehand would suggest there's some significance to it I think by midday tomorrow we'll be all having a a conversation about something else thanks very much