Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

The difficulties in America obviously had an impact on the financial sector here. The banks have completely reined themselves in, perhaps unnecessarily, in the context of offering people credit. It used to be far easier for first-time buyers to obtain credit. However, the position has changed and this is having an effect. The banks are seeking to take a belt-and-braces approach and the days when people could obtain 100% mortgages are gone. In many instances, banks are only prepared to provide 80% mortgages. This affects first-time buyers, without whom the residential property sector and the economy in general will get into trouble. First-time buyers are the lifeblood of the building sector.

Current banking policy is fuelling a boom-and-bust model. We must address this development. The banks have created many of the problems experienced in the past four to five years. There was a time when one could not walk past a bank without ending up with a €20,000 loan in one's back pocket and included with every newspaper or magazine were advertising documents offering all sorts of unsecured loans. This type of behaviour was unhelpful. It fed an already buoyant economy and created a sense that there was endless credit available. The banks are now acting in an aggressive manner by not offering loans to those who are in a position to repay them and who can set them off against assets that are secure. Unfortunately, the boom-and-bust approach is having a significant impact in this regard and we must take action in respect of it.

Not all banks took the approach to which I refer and some were more prudent. However, the behaviour of those that offered incentives such as interest-free periods, 100% mortgages and the provision of funds that were additional to those that could be obtained through such mortgages in order to allow people to buy furnishings, landscape their properties, etc., was entirely unhelpful. Perhaps a committee of the House might address that matter at a later stage.

The Minister has clearly set out the Government's energy policy, speaking about security of supply, sustainability of the environment and price competitiveness. It is important we look to such Government policy rather than adopt some soft approach in terms of taking the levy from these power generation companies and appearing to give it back to the public through some reduction in VAT. From past experience when the high rate of VAT was reduced, the difference did not find its way back to the consumer so anything suggested in this motion, particularly by way of giving the windfall back to the consumer, would not work.

The windfall to the power generating sector should have some effect and we should find some method of placing encumbrance on the windfall, although I am not sure the Robin Hood levy would necessarily be the way to go. The Government should consider attaching conditions and consideration might be given to research and development and whether the energy generating companies are not just prepared to invest in new technologies by way of capital investment. They must look beyond that and investment in research and development for the next wave of technologies would certainly be helpful.

We must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and get real about our dependence on coal and oil. Everybody in this House, regardless of political persuasion, is coming around to that way of thinking. It is not sustainable in the long term to continue in the way in which we have consumed coal and oil. We have a duty of care to the environment and the generation of power plays an important part in that.

We should consider the use of hydrogen, wind, wave and tide energy in getting a much better level of power generation. As a result of our unique position, with currents, winds and tides surrounding this island, we should be able to harness such energy and invest to a point where we will benefit in future.

See this speech in context