Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is wrong and in that regard I refer to him the Central Bank's website. It refers to the emergence of a credit fuelled property bubble, trying to control house prices, etc. This is clearly spelled out. Suppressing house prices was not a consequence of the rules but one of their objectives.

On the amendment, this change is obviously an example of new politics. The Fine Gael Party wanted a ceiling of €600,000, Fianna Fáil wanted it set at €400,000 and a figure of €500,000 has emerged in the Bill. I note Deputy Michael McGrath acknowledged that this was the wrong proposal. It is important to place on record that the only proposal from Fianna Fáil, other than its call for an independent review, was to widen the scheme.

On the new €500,000 limit provided for in the amendment, an individual who purchases a house in Dublin or elsewhere at a cost of €500,000 would be required under the macro-prudential rules on loan-to-value ratio to have a deposit of €78,000. However, because the scheme permits a loan-to-value ratio of 70%, the purchaser will already have a deposit of €150,000 in his or her back pocket or bank account. If somebody has already acquired twice what is required under the macro-prudential rules and has been able to save €158,000, from whatever source, why should citizens provide him or her with a tax rebate of €20,000 to buy a property worth €500,000?