Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We are used to the Government of the day, whatever the colour of that Government is, describing itself as a responsible policymaker. In this case, it is the Opposition that is the responsible policymaker, because this policy is bananas from a public policy point of view. By the time this scheme is wound down, and it certainly will not be wound down between now and the general election because it is individually popular for those who have accessed it, it could have been knocking around for ten years. It is already costing approximately 50% more than was originally envisaged. The Minister is right that it is a demand-led scheme and that is in the nature of these kinds of schemes. The figure of €30,000 is baked into it and developers base their pricing structures for the still relatively limited number of new homes that are available on the fact that €30,000 is baked in. They are chasing the market and this subsidy.

I had the Minister down as an evidence-based politician, as somebody who takes evidence on board, undertakes research and is informed by the best principles of policymaking before he arrives at a decision, but I do not believe that is the case in this regard and in many other schemes for which he is responsible. It has inflated house prices. The evidence is there to show that. It has not dramatically increased private supply. We know, from looking at the massive increase in house prices, that the private market is not building anywhere near what ought to be the case to find some kind of equilibrium in the market. There are a lot of, by and large, young buyers who are chasing a very limited amount of supply. Being backed by a subsidy of this nature is not ultimately helping society. It might help individuals who may be happy to take advantage of this, and I understand why that would be the case, but it is very bad public policy and a bad use of taxpayers' money in the middle of a housing crisis.

I said it before and I will say it again, these resources cumulatively over a number of years would have been better deployed in developing social homes or a proper affordable housing scheme worthy of the name. The idea that this is being extended by another year to provide certainty is bizarre. It is being extended for another year because that is the timeframe for the holding of the next general election. There is a fear about making any decision with regard to schemes like this that would interfere in some way with the electoral cycle.