Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Chairman, amendment No. 15 has been ruled out of order, but can I just say that in regard to the help-to-buy scheme, we were given a commitment over a long period of time that a cost-benefit analysis would be set out and an impact assessment statement would be done in relation to various tax reliefs and introductions into the Finance Bill? That has been a fundamental principle which has been advocated by many Members in the Dáil but also by others, such as the tax strategy groups. It is proposed that this scheme would run until December 2019.

The purpose of the Labour Party's amendment was that it would be terminated by a sunset clause at the end of December 2017. This would ensure there would be an opportunity to assess the impact of the scheme on the market. The Minister is aware a significant amount of commentary suggests the consequences of this scheme will be basically to help developers and push up the price of housing. A small group of people who are in a position to benefit from the scheme immediately may do so. However, for others, who will be purchasing in the next period of time, it will actually drive property prices up, so there will be no net gain. In a certain sense, it is a distraction.

I do not know the argument behind it. The Minister may feel it is a confidence-building measure for developers and builders, who in many cases are on strike, and for banks, which in many cases are on strike as regards giving credit to small and medium-sized developers and builders. This is partly because the builders and developers either have an impaired credit record from the crash or lack equity. The banks, as people who deal with them know, are keen on people looking for loans to be able to show equity in a project. The Minister may be trying to address the specific issue that there are not sufficient lines of credit available, particularly for small and medium-sized developers. However, the NAMA-style developers or international investors, by and large, have lines of credit available to them.

I do not see why this scheme should be in place up to 31 December. The Minister rightly said on amendment No. 12 that when one puts a scheme in place, it is relatively difficult to withdraw it, particularly when it is successful. In this particular case, however, a serious cost-benefit analysis needs to be done. Accordingly, I do not think it is right to allow such a long period for a scheme when there is no requirement to produce any evidence upfront. A wide range of observers of the property market, as well as the institutions which spoke at the new budgetary oversight committee, have said this scheme is not going to contribute very much to the housing crisis, other than pushing the price of houses up. In effect, it is a subsidy to the developer. It would be much better if the Minister devoted the work and the energy to trying to sort out lines of credit for those developers and resolved the equity issues which are a particular problem for the banks.