Michael D'Arcy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Many of us who have been here since the start of the debate or the start of this Seanad know the Minister, Deputy Noonan, has always attended whenever he could. I do not think Senator Ó Domhnaill's comment was intended as criticism, but I want to put that on the record.

One of the issues Senator Barrett and I know from the banking inquiry is that one cannot go chasing the flame. If house prices are €300,000 or €400,000, every sector cannot go chasing it to try to have salaries to match that in order that people can make the payments. Property is too expensive. The criticism I have is that the two pillar banks, AIB and Bank of Ireland in particular, do not have serious competition. We saw what happened when serious competition came in, going back to the 1990s, and we are writing a report on that at the moment. We should not be afraid to look at something new. There have been announcements of the €3.8 billion social fund in respect of construction of social and affordable housing, and there was the NAMA announcement in the budget. I have looked at Senator Barrett's Bill, although I did not get the opportunity to attend his briefing, and I know everything he does tends to be done well. This is something we should look at. I am questioning whether it should be voted down. I would like to see it pass Second Stage and be considered further. It would be something positive from the House and we should consider it.

There are a couple of facts we cannot ignore. I am glad we are talking about property and housing in terms of affordability. There has been a huge conversation about homelessness and social housing, but that is a portion of the market while this is the greater portion of the market. Within the sector it is not affordable. It is not affordable for a number of reasons, and Senator Barrett has not shied away from that. Regulation is too expensive, and the construction of properties is too expensive because of those regulations. I would question why regulation has to be on every single property. There can be some properties within an estate, 15% or 20%, that meet those regulations, but not every property, because it is too expensive to build a house.

The data compiled in the briefing document from Senator Barrett exclude land price. As we know, one cannot exclude land price, but one cannot factor it into a figure because it varies, and by God does it vary in Dublin. Senator O'Brien spoke about the garda and the nurse. They are not in the space where they can purchase in Dublin. Everything flows from Dublin. Whether we like it or not, it flows from Dublin to my constituency of Wexford and as far as Donegal. Everything flows from County Dublin. There is a huge displacement. The flow from Dublin has an impact throughout the country. Local authority county development plans that only allow locals to build a house in the countryside push those displaced from Dublin from the rural areas where they used to buy into the urban areas. That has a further impact on people who want to purchase in urban areas in our towns and villages.

I am not sure there is a coherent policy in the overall context. The Minister of State knows as well as anybody that it is the same in Mayo as in Donegal and Wexford. I would welcome something like Senator Barrett's Bill. I was not aware of Ginnie Mae in the US or the mortgage company in Canada, but they are areas we should not be afraid to look at. As the Minister of State, Deputy English, said, the Central Bank has made moves, but it has also made moves on the 20% deposit and the income ratios. The income ratios are having a bigger impact on the loans than the 20% deposit. To get their house and to get on the first rung of the property ladder, families will find the money somewhere. It could come from parents, family and different sources. However, there is no finding the income ratios in respect of the mortgage amount and it cannot be added in. It is not available. It is something on which this legislation have a beneficial impact.

I find the pillar banks just about impossible. I want to touch on the NAMA prospect of 20,000 units. I do not know whether it will happen, but it can happen. The Minister of State, Deputy Ring, was in the other House when the NAMA primary schedule was brought before both Houses. Unfortunately, NAMA's primary schedule is to get the money back. That is its primary purpose. I am not being political but that was the purpose of the legislation at the time and it is still the primary purpose, whereas with the Central Bank the meat and two veg of the issue is what will happen with these 20,000 units.I think there should be an alteration in their primary purpose. As 90% of the units are in Dublin so they will have an impact in Dublin. Will the country benefit from the flow from Dublin?

I wish to refer to NAMA. It was active in my own county and has hundreds of acres in Gorey town which was one of those towns that blossomed during the boom. I would like this legislation to pass Second Stage as it would be beneficial but I cannot give any guarantee as to what will happen beyond that point.