John McGahon (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I raised a couple of points on this matter when the Minister came before the House a couple of weeks ago. I want to keep my points brief as I have only about five and a half minutes. The first point I wish to raise concerns the help to buy scheme. I can talk about this because it affects my generation. I am 29 years of age. I cannot speak for Senator Gavan, but so many of my friends and people of my age bracket have benefited massively from the help to buy scheme since 2017. I remember when the help to buy scheme was introduced in 2017, when I worked as a member of staff in this House. The same things were said then; that it would drive up prices, freeze people out of the market and be of no use in the first place. In the past three years there has been no empirical data whatsoever to suggest that was true. Now that we are increasing the value of the scheme by €10,000 to €30,000, it will help even more people of my generation to get on the property ladder for the first time. In the past three years it has provided this assistance to 19,000 people.

By way of constructive criticism of the scheme, I would like to see flexibility around the 70%. As I left Dundalk this morning and drove to this House to speak in this debate, I spoke with a friend of mine, a man named Peter. Peter and his wife fall through the legislative cracks in the help to buy scheme. I bring up this constructively because I think we can look into this in the future. Peter and his wife are looking to buy a new build in Blackrock, just outside Dundalk in County Louth. At the moment that three-bed end-of-terrace house costs €225,000. They are on a single income because Peter's wife has been sick for the past 18 months. She is a qualified secondary school teacher but she suffers from vestibular migraines causing dizziness and vertigo. She will not be able to go back to work for the time being. Peter is in permanent employment in Dundalk. They were approved for a mortgage of €152,000.

The rules of the help to buy scheme state that the loan-to-value ratio of the mortgage must be higher than 70%. In this case that figure is 65%, so Peter and his wife are unable to qualify. I fully understand that the 70% minimum is there to stop people who can afford to buy a house outright from partaking in the scheme. I absolutely accept that. However, the case I have raised shows we could allow more flexibility around the 70% rule. Peter and his wife are not able to buy their house outright. As he said to me in the car this morning, he does not expect things to change at this time. He asked me to convey to the House that if we ever look at this again, the scheme should be slightly more flexible towards individuals who come close to the 70%. Deloitte recently highlighted a case which went to the Tax Appeals Commission. The loan-to-value ratio in that case was found to be 69.89% and relief was denied. This is intended as constructive criticism. I wish to point out some of the cracks in the legislation through which people can fall.

I would also like to discuss a topic I raised with the Minister two or three weeks ago when she came to the House to discuss the temporary Covid-19 wage subsidy scheme. I raised the case of a family who switched accountants at the beginning of the year and were not on the pay as you earn, PAYE, system on 29 February. They were paid their whole wage on the tenth week. They were in employment throughout the pandemic, but the legislation was quite clear and they were not able to qualify. They will be able to qualify for the scheme now because we have removed some of the restrictions to make it easier. While that is very welcome news for that family business, it is marginally unfair that they were unable to claim the payment previously and there is no way for them to claim compensation at a later stage.

In my last 60 seconds I would like to raise employer's pay-related social insurance, PRSI, contributions. A rate of 0.5% will continue to apply to employers who are eligible for the subsidy. As I am sure the Minister will agree, that represents a considerable saving for the employer, in addition to the subsidy paid for each employee. That amounts to 11.05% on a full wage.

I will conclude by saying that my colleague, Senator D'Arcy, is absolutely correct. This is the most generous scheme of subsidies since the foundation of the State. It cannot be sniffed at. I respect constructive criticism. In my six years in local politics and in this House I have been willing to work with everyone on both sides of the House. However, I do not accept opposition for opposition's sake. Unfortunately in my very brief time in this House and on the national stage, it has seemed that such opposition is the norm and not the exception.