Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not take up the committee's time for too long. Going back to Ms Shovlin's point, this is certainly beyond a fact-finding mission, but it has been a very worthwhile engagement. I hope, as a committee, we can make it worth the homeowners' while. The contributions from the witnesses have been very informative. The knowledge they have brought has been of immense value to us. I was probably much closer to this issue a number of years ago when I was in the Department with responsibility for housing at the early stages of the mica issue. Today has been very useful for me to get a much clearer update on it and on what has to be done.

I have a few comments. Mr. Sharkey stressed the need to follow the science. He is correct. We have to follow the science right to the end of this. The early work at the start of the process, which took far too long, was all about putting in place firm science and foundations to be able to get the scheme to a value of €2 billion or €3 billion to ensure that, even though it is not perfect, we will have a scheme we can always work with, adjust and change as the need is identified. Clearly, the witnesses have identified some changes or additions are needed. From the start, it was about following the science and getting the detail right. As painstaking as that was, it should prove worthwhile. That has to be followed so that, as the witnesses have said, homeowners are left with houses that are restored to their full value that they can remortgage or on which their children can draw down a mortgage in years to come. That is what it is meant to be about. It is about protecting and replacing family homes. It has gone beyond that and now takes in other properties as well. Our remit as a committee is to work with the group on that and to see it out.

I have a few comments and questions. I am disappointed the banks have not been more proactive on this. From an early stage, when we dealt with previous mica committees, and I know the witnesses are members of a subcommittee, we always had discussions that this scheme was also going to restore bank assets, technically. The witnesses referred to security. Effectively, until the mortgages are paid, these houses are assets of the banks. They have just as big an interest as the homeowners to get this scheme working and working well. They should be very proactive. The group's ask is very fair from what I can see from today's presentation. I will certainly go through it in more detail. I have not had the chance to go through all the detail and guidelines of the new scheme, but it is fair of the group to ask for 0% finance as opposed to the banks writing bigger cheques. The group is looking for a scheme that is workable and fair to everybody. As a committee, we can work with the witnesses on that. In feedback from the banks to the group, I have not heard the Central Bank being used as the reason they cannot help more. My own sense of it is we need to engage more with the Central Bank - I know the group is looking for a meeting with it - around allowing the banks to implement some of the solutions that have been suggested. It should be possible, but I think the Central Bank has a role in that.

The banks have a role in looking for that leniency with the rules. My question is mainly directed to Mr. McCabe. Have the banks blamed the rules, regulations or the Central Bank for their tardiness to come forward with solutions? At some stage, we need them all in the one room in order to try to get this rectified.

Ms McDade spoke about having to pay the extra credit union interest to try to carry this. I seek more explanation regarding the delay. When the decision was made to demolish her house, I would have assumed that at that stage clear arrangements would have been put in place to help her cover the cost of the building. That does not seem to be what is happening here at all. I ask her to comment on that.

There is a sense that the majority of work here will involve self-build. I understand the majority of work previously was self-build. I would have thought that a number of small builders would have been prepared to step in and carry out some of this work. Is there a finance issue blocking that happening? Are builders also being knocked back by the banks when they look for this to be bankrolled in order to be able to take on these houses as projects, complete the building work and then draw down finance at the end? In other State schemes, builders have stepped in successfully and have been in a position to carry the cost for a while. That does not seem to be happening here which is another market failure. That would point to an opportunity to us to work in conjunction with the banks, the Central Bank and Government to be able to address this if there is a market failure identified as well.

There is no point in rehearsing this. The witnesses have been through serious trauma for far too long. Deputy Conway-Walsh said that we have been on this road for far too long. The witnesses have had to live with this for far too long. We need to bring it to an end. This week's scheme should be seen as an enhancement and it is meant to be. In that respect, I understand from the Taoiseach's comments in the Dáil today that if there are enhancements and if Ms McDade would have been better off on this scheme, there is an opportunity for her to avail of that. That is my understanding, but I want to check it as well. Likewise, I understand that there is meant to be an allowance of an increase of up to 12% or 13% to deal with inflated costs since this was last costed last year. I stand to be corrected on that and I will also pursue that. That is also in there.

I will make a number of broader comments and ask a couple of questions. Ms Shovlin asked the a specific question. A number of weeks ago, Deputy Doherty requested that the witnesses appear before the committee. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael McGrath, has also dealt with this matter on the floor of the House. It is done with a desire to try to help find solutions and that is something we will help to take on.