Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As always when addressing this issue I want to begin by acknowledging the massive problems that have been caused to many homeowners the length and breadth of our country. While I have not had the opportunity to be in the homes of those who have been affected by mica, and who have seen their homes crumble in front of their eyes, I have met homeowners. I engaged with them in the run-up to other budgets and in the run-up to decisions being made regarding the mica scheme. I could see at first hand the great deep stress that so many faced as they saw their homes turn into crumbling building.

Deputy Doherty said he had an idea about what I was going to say when I spoke about the commitment the Government has made. I will certainly follow up where we are on making the detailed scheme available to those homeowners who have been affected by mica but I still have to make the point, notwithstanding him expecting me to make it, that at €2.7 billion this is one of the largest capital programmes in the country. It is comparable to the national broadband scheme. It is bigger than the capital programmes for many Departments. We are making this commitment because we know the State has a role to help in alleviating the harm that has been done to homeowners throughout the country due to practices and behaviours that are unacceptable.

The commitment of €2.7 billion is a massive commitment by the Exchequer. Deputy Doherty and I over the past two and a half days have exchanged words and made points to each other regarding the efforts that each of us makes to pay for either the expenditure programmes I am committed to or the new programmes he wants to initiates if his party is in government. Each of us makes points to each other about tens of millions of euros in order for the budget I do and the commitments he puts forward to add up and for each of us to have explanations regarding how we would pay for things in future. I struggle with an element of some of the debates that have taken place on mica, and this does not for a moment dilute the commitment I have to make a difference to the homeowners affected by the presence of mica in their homes. The Members of the Dáil, this committee and the Government spend a lot of time and energy debating with each other programmes that are worth tens of millions of euros and we have arguments and discussions with each other about how we will pay for them. This programme is worth billions. To indicate that the Government can make a commitment to this and there will not be trade-offs or consequences as a result is, frankly, dangerous.

I know what Deputy Doherty has said, which is that we should pay for this by extending the banking levy and by maintaining the banking levy at a higher rate and redesigning it to do this. The problem with this is that when we get to making this decision there will be lots of other cases that are also very worthy and they will want €80 million, €100 million or €130 million spent on them, whether it is putting more into housing, building more schools or investing more in many of the various issues we have spoken about while discussing the Finance Bill. By the time the decision gets to be made regarding whether or not the bank levy should be extended there will be multiple competing demands on how the money is spent. This is why it is essential, particularly if we are about to make other decisions regarding the commitment of other billions of euro to fix the mistakes that some made in the building of homes in the past and fix the harm done to homeowners, that we do not say we can make those commitments and that other things will not happen as a consequence. If we do, what will happen is this Government or the next Government will find itself in a position that many demands will be placed on it and it will not have the money to respond.

For these reasons I believe the levy I am bringing forward is justified. Does it have risks and trade-offs associated with it? It does. Could it affect the price of building new houses and apartments? Clearly that risk is there if all of the levy is passed on in increased construction costs. We have modelled these costs. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has released a paper on it. The costs it may well add, however, are a very small share of the overall costs involved in the construction of a new home. The committee is aware of what they are. They are 0.15% to 0.2% for an apartment and 0.2% and 0.45% for a typical semi-detached home. I know this is a potential additional cost of hundreds of euros or more than €1,000 for those involved in building the home and those who could be involved in purchasing the home.

Any measure I bring forward to pay for a commitment of billions of euros will have consequences and trade-offs associated with it. It is for this reason that I believe a measure such as this is needed. I will go back to the general point I opened with. I cannot indicate to the House or to the taxpayer that we can commit to €2.7 billion of spending over a number of years and not say that at some point there will have to be measures that will make a contribution to it and those measures will have consequences and trade-offs. This is an essential point to make when we debate billions of euros. It is why this levy is, I believe, merited overall and we need to do it.