Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

No. I will reply to the contributions. I do not know if I will withdraw the amendment because Senators have expressed concern about ensuring that each quintile would be represented. There was concern, for example, about only having the bottom two quintiles represented. My amendment addresses all quintiles. The amendment means the Government would think of affordability for each quintile in the country, including those in the bottom 20% of incomes, those in the next 20% of incomes and so on. My amendment addresses all of those issues and having spoken to Senator Boyhan, I know he is not tied to 40%. If it was accepted, it would take a small amendment from the Government in the Dáil to change the figure to 60% if it wanted to have the bottom three quintiles addressed.

I have to disagree with the Minister on one core point. He spoke of starting with families. The current model for affordability starts with what the market price is and then refers to how people are able to access that market. It starts with the market prices, then looks at the mortgage a person can get to try to reach that market price, and then tries to bridge the gap between the mortgage a person can get and the market price. It recognises the different circumstances of different people in that the gap between what they have and what the market price is may be different but the core point is that it begins with the market, rather than the person. That is why it is a blunt and variable measure. It leaves us with what is effectively a market access contribution and support, rather than affordability because it does not have a definition of, nor does it start with the question of, what people can afford in their life. That is why it is a reasonable provision.

There will be many cases where it will be met. That is why I do not understand the fear of a requirement that it be not more than 35% of income. If many of the affordable housing proposals are going to be 26%, 30% or 27% and fall within it, why not copper-fasten that principle? It would send a signal about how we expect people to live and how much we expect people's lives to be determined by service to a debt on property. That is a reasonable question.

Senator Boyhan is not lost. He is one of the most grounded Senators we have in that he knows and understands the realities of people and communities. He worked in local authorities for many years.I know he is speaking from the ground up. These amendments start with people and what they can afford. That might create more attention but it starts with what people can afford and that is important, otherwise we will continue to chase the market and let the market determine the market value.

I refer to the proposals on affordability and whether or not the Minister of State wants to nuance them. We debated the different perspective as to whether all quintiles should be addressed separately, whether the bottom two or three – those are the details. The core principal should start with people's incomes and the percentage of which they should be expected to be spent on a home. Affordability should be calculated upwards from that rather than downwards from the market. That is the core difference being debated here. I am clearly on the side of starting at the level of what is affordable to a person or household. In that sense, I support Senator Boyhan’s amendment and I will press my amendment as well.