Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Let us look at the language. I am aware that investors will look at this in the round but I am talking about what the legislation forces the Minister for Finance to state in the Dáil, which has an impact. We understand that investors are not going to just look at headlines when they are making their investments and I take the Minister's point on that. Let us take a scenario, however, where because of an increased capital cost on housing, for example - or it could be for other reasons - there was a need to bring a resolution forward in any given year to say there was a significant deterioration in the economic or fiscal position of the State, and given this has happened no money has gone into the fund that year. Say we are still operating on a general government balance with a modest surplus of €1 billion and we were not allowed to put money into the fund that year, if everything remained static, no money was put into the fund and the outlook remained the same for the following year, and we were still operating with a general government balance of €1 billion, the Bill states "... the Minister, having carried out an assessment in accordance with section 26(1), is of the opinion - (a) that there has been, or is likely to be in the subsequent year, a deterioration in the economic or fiscal position of the State,". I suggest that the deterioration does not have to happen. The fiscal position of the State could actually be the same as the previous year but it still does not allow for the transfer to be made.

The Minister also mentioned a scenario where a Minister had the ability just to put in whatever he or she believes is the appropriate level in any given year. The Minister does not believe it would work because there are other pressures and so on, which in my view really speaks to the point of this Bill as being about the big pressure that is housing in the State. That is where Exchequer voted capital has to be ramped up. This Bill is a comfort blanket to a Minister for Finance who operates on a conservative basis, so that he or she can say, "I cannot do it because we have legislated for this and therefore we cannot meet the needs of housing." The Minister made the point that if a Minister for Finance was allowed to make the payments he or she thought necessary without having the structure of 0.8% or 0.4% of GDP, he believes that would not happen. That, however, is exactly what the Minister is legislating for in this legislation beyond 2034; it is to allow a Minister to decide on his or her own assessment what is the appropriate amount of money to go into the fund at that point in time. The Government cannot have it both ways. This legislation does include that provision. This 0.8% is only for the first nine years of the legislation and the remainder then is in relation to a Minister's own assessment. That assessment would be better viewed in terms of general government balance or indeed Exchequer balance. Using it just as a percentage of GDP in the economy means that it does not take into account any expenditure pressures or needs that are there.