100% mortgages would drive up house prices, Central Bank warns
Mark Cassidy, the Central Bank's director of financial stability, warned TDs and senators at the Oireachtas housing committee against the return of 100% mortgages.
'We think that would be a bad idea,' Mr Cassidy said.
It would add to demand without any impact on supply and therefore add to prices.
'More fundamentally, it increases the risk for borrowers and for banks.'
Banks introduced 100% mortgages during the Celtic Tiger period, but more recent Central Bank rules do not allow either 100% or 95% mortgages to be given out.
Current rules require borrowers to have a 10% deposit in order to obtain a mortgage.
Mr Cassidy said reintroducing 100% mortgages would increase the risk of default, if a household's income fell. He added that, if house prices fall, homeowners would immediately fall into negative equity and would be likely to 'get into financial distress'.
'We believe a minimum of a 10% deposit remains necessary for either first time borrowers or existing borrowers,' he added.
'We would be confident that 100% mortgages are overly risky, both from the perspective of the borrower and the perspective of the bank.'
The matter was raised by a number of TDs and senators during the meeting, who questioned whether it would be possible to allow for the reintroduction of 100% mortgage products. It comes as Independent Ireland has called for the reintroduction of 100% mortgages, saying that many tenants are able to pay more in rent than they would need for monthly mortgage repayments.
The Central Bank was also critical of Government plans to consider expanding the First Home shared equity scheme to second-hand homes. Robert Kelly, the Central Bank's director of economics and statistics, warned against the measure.
'The challenge in front of us, it's mainly supply. The current scheme works through pushing up demand and house prices, creating more additional funding for them to buy houses so it stimulates supply.
'I don't see how applying that to the second-hand housing market would achieve that. I think the net effect of that would be additional demand, which would likely feed its way into house prices as opposed to creating large amounts of supply.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Irish Sun
18 hours ago
- The Irish Sun
New ‘right to be forgotten' law for cancer survivors marks significant step – survivors deserve to move on with lives
THERE was some good news for cancer survivors this week. The Government said it will progress plans to give them the 'right to be forgotten' and end barriers to accessing financial products. 2 Robert Troy writes that cancer survivors deserve to move on with their lives without being penalised Credit: Alamy 2 The Government will bring forward legislation to enshrine in law that they have the 'right to be forgotten' Credit: Getty Images - Getty The Central Bank (Amendment) Bill 2025 will ensure cancer survivors can't be discriminated against when it comes to obtaining certain insurance products, specifically mortgage protection, due to their medical history. For too long, cancer survivors in Ireland have faced an uphill battle not just in beating the cruel disease but then in rebuilding their lives, particularly when it comes to accessing basic financial products. Despite being in remission for years, many are penalised for their past diagnosis. The legislation was proposed by Fianna Fail's Catherine Ardagh. Writing in The Irish Sun on Sunday today, Robert Troy, Minister of State with special responsibility for Financial Services, Credit Unions and Insurance, says a fairer deal for cancer survivors starts now. READ MORE IN IRISH NEWS THIS week marked a significant step forward in our commitment to fairness, transparency and compassion in the insurance market. The Government will bring forward legislation before the summer recess to enshrine in law the 'right to be forgotten' for At the heart of this legislation is a simple principle: if you've beaten cancer, your past diagnosis should not define your financial future. Survivors deserve to move on with their lives — to buy a home, protect their Most read in The Irish Sun Many cancer survivors in Ireland have found themselves excluded or charged unfairly when applying for basic financial protections like The major symptoms of 'common cancer' as HSE say 'know the signs' That's not right. It's not reflective of the person they are today, nor is it reflective of the values we aspire to as a country. That's why this Government is acting. This is a Bill with broad cross-party support. I must commend my Her effort over the years has allowed me to introduce it as a Government Bill, speeding up the process and advancing it before the summer recess. CERTAINTY NEEDED Her tireless advocacy has helped bring this issue to the fore and push it up the political agenda. The new legislation will start with mortgage protection — following international best practice — and we hope to review the scope of the legislation in future in a careful, informed way, with a view to delivering the most impact for the greatest number of people. I want to acknowledge the positive steps already taken within the industry. In 2023, a Voluntary Code of Practice was introduced by Insurance Ireland and supported by the Irish It was a welcome move that showed what is possible when an industry works with advocates and Government to do the right thing. However, voluntary codes alone aren't enough. Survivors deserve certainty. That's what this legislation will provide. ADVANCEMENT SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED Enshrining this into law means While eight companies signed up to the Voluntary Code, its very nature meant they could withdraw or that new entrants to the market could disregard it. That will not be the case with this law. This is about removing unnecessary barriers to home ownership and It's about making sure our insurance system treats people with dignity, respect and fairness. And it's about restoring confidence that the market is transparent and working in the best interests of all citizens. Cancer is a monumental hill to climb for individuals, their partners and families. We are fortunate that with advances in That advancement should not be punished. Survivors who have been without treatment for seven years, or five if diagnosed under the age of 18, will now have clarity and comfort. This legislation is also a direct delivery on our Programme for Government commitment. It was included for a reason: because it's the right thing to do. REFORM FOR FAIRNESS The Government has been clear in its ambition to drive a more inclusive and fair insurance landscape. This announcement is a major milestone on that journey. It was a piece of legislation which I wanted to make real progress on when I took up my role in January and it is my intention that this Bill will be enacted before the end of the year. It is also important to recognise the ongoing work of the Irish Cancer Society whose campaigning and research has been instrumental, and Insurance Ireland, who have constructively engaged throughout and managed the Voluntary Code of Practice. Legislative drafting is underway and we are working closely with colleagues across We're also talking with key stakeholders to ensure the law strikes the right balance between consumer protection and market integrity. We want to send a clear message to cancer survivors: We see you, we support you, and we are changing the law to make your path forward easier. This reform is not about punishing insurers, it's about building a market that is based on fairness, transparency, and compassion. That's what modern Ireland should be about. And that is what this Government is delivering.
Irish Times
20 hours ago
- Irish Times
No one comes out of personal injury award fiasco well
Accusing Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan of a U-turn on personal injury award guidelines might be a stretch given it appears he was careful not to state publicly that he was in favour of the Judicial Council plan to increase awards by 17 per cent. But he certainly did nothing to suggest he opposed it or that he intended to blank the Judicial Council on this issue in dramatic fashion this week. Was the plan simply to sit back and measure the scale of opposition to the proposal for five whole months? If so, what does this tell us about policymaking here? Where's the leadership? The whole fiasco simply serves to highlight the mockery that is the process by which such a sensitive issue is addressed – a classic Irish solution to an Irish problem. READ MORE Following last year's Supreme Court ruling, we have the bizarre stage play of the Judicial Council conducting periodic reviews of the guidelines as provided for under the 2019 legislation it operates under. However, its recommendations are just that. Passed to the Minister for Justice, they have no force until the minister lays them before the Oireachtas alongside a resolution to give them force of law when backed by a vote. That way, a judiciary that can be prickly at any perceived intrusion into their realm can maintain its appearance of independence by reviewing the rules. Politicians, for their part, can largely wash their hands of responsibility by arguing that the proposals are not theirs, but the judiciary's. Meanwhile, costs rise and Ireland's compensation culture continues largely untouched. When the Judicial Council concedes that the outcome of this, its first review of the guidelines, amounted to little more than applying the impact of consumer price inflation over the intervening period, the circus is complete. The process is indefensible. It remains unclear whether the decision was of the Minister's own volition or at the behest of the Cabinet or the Coalition party leaders eager to damp down the flames of fury from industry and consumers alike over the increases that would inevitably follow – not least given his petulant pronouncement after the decision that a failure to present the 17 per cent hike might only see courts ramping up awards anyway and encourage people to bypass the Injuries Resolution Board. The guidelines that have started to put manners on personal injury awards remain in place, complete with provisions to curb precisely those tendencies, as the Minister well knows.
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Mick Clifford: Why are we allowing hate speech thrive?
Should we be free to say whatever we want, to voice our deepest fears or resentments? Should we have the right to cause offence if we believe such offence is entirely warranted? Right now, the Government, and much of the body politic, appear to be going along with the notion that there should be precious little restrictions on the right to abuse or denigrate minorities. Most of them are not doing so out of conviction, but out of fear. At issue is a matter than any thoughtful politician knows has an impact on society, but in the prevailing atmosphere is considered more trouble than it is worth. And if such cowardice impacts negatively on individuals, well, that's really awful but the attitude appears to be that those individuals will just have to suck it up. Ireland has been threatened with legal action by the EU for failing to implement proper hate speech laws. The current law in this country, the Incitement To Hatred Act, dates back to 1989. It was enacted before the internet became central to life, at a time when the country was fairy banjaxed, before it took off and attracted people from all around the world to service the economy. There have been seven successful prosecutions under the act in the last 35 years. This suggests either we are living in a Utopia of peace, love and understanding or else the law is an ass New legislation was drafted and last year and began its passage through the Oireachtas. It was flawed in a few respects. One section in particular would have made it a crime to be in possession of material that could, if disseminated, lead to incitement to hatred. That was by any standards overkill and attracted criticism from both left and right. The other issue that arose was the protected categories of people against whom it would be illegal to incite hatred. One of these involved gender. The whole area of gender dysphoria is contested and has been at the centre of the culture wars both here and abroad in recent years. Again, there would have been a way to frame that with a little political will. All such political will disappeared in the wake of the defeat of the women in the home and care referendums in March 2024. Accurately or otherwise, the result was at least partly interpreted as a visceral reaction to so-called 'woke' culture which is associated with the rise of identity politics in the late decade or so. Thereafter, with the body politic shook at the reaction to referendums that nearly all parties had supported, the reaction was to run away from anything else that might be interpreted as 'woke'. Such an attitude, while politically understandable, is a complete derogation of the most fundamental duties in a liberal democracy. Hate speech laws are necessary, as recognised by most developed countries Nefarious elements thrive on spreading hate about minorities. Some elements make money out of this, particularly online. Meanwhile, the spreading of hatred can result in fractures in society, violence, and even impinge on basis elements of a democracy. At the level of individuals, it means that people can be abused or denigrated based on their ethnic make-up. Interestingly, the kind of people who shout loudly that we should not have laws to prevent this are the first to reach for a lawyer if they perceive that even the most innocuous slight on them personally amounts to a grievous character assassination. Prior to the opening up of the country to foreign workers, the spreading of hatred was customarily done by those who felt entitled to abuse Travellers collectively. These days, it is directed at asylum seekers and generally people from diverse ethnic backgrounds and members of the LGBT community, particularly those who class themselves as transgender. Donald Trump and other authoritarian figures have shown that there is political capital and money to be made from allowing hate speech to thrive. He has won votes on the back of denigrating minorities and from the tech bros who own the online space who resist any restrictions on speech that might in any way prevent them from inflating their billions. On this side of the Atlantic, there is generally some regard for society as a whole and less for putting the interests of billionaires and their cronies about all other considerations. Despite all that, our Government is intent on sitting on its hands. The justice minister Jim O'Callaghan has informed the EU that we're perfectly happy with our ancient peace and love, and we understand law in this country and we won't be changing. This was confirmed by Taoiseach Micheál Martin during the week in a doorstep interview outside government buildings. He said the way the entire debate around hate speech has been conducted 'left a lot to be desired,' which is certainly the case. He went on. 'There is too much incitement to hate going on in this country which can lead to bad behaviour and to violence because of their sexual orientation or their race and we have all witnessed it on social media'. So the Taoiseach openly accepts that hate speech is a major problem in society but insists that we can tackle it through the peace, love and understanding law that is about as useful as tits on a bull The reality is that the Government parties — and Sinn Féin in particular on the opposition benches — are scared witless of the intolerant right that would portray them as 'woke' if they were to pursue enacting a law to prevent minorities being targeted by hate. Prior to the 2024 referendums, the main parties were scared of the other extreme, the authoritarian strain of the left that focused on identity politics. If any politician said anything interpreted as straying from the strict ideology of this intolerance, particularly in areas like gender dysphoria, they were abused and labelled as transphobic, racist or whatever. That intolerance in turn got the backs up of some people who expressed their frustration or opposition to it by voting against the referendums. Then, in the customary Irish way, one extreme was swapped for another. The intolerant right had the upper hand in the public square and replaced the authoritarian left as the bogeymen for mainstream politicians. Where once the body politic was afraid of those purveying identity politics, now they fear most anything that might result in being lumbered with the label 'woke'. In such a milieu the easiest solution to any problems around hate speech legislation is viewed as dumping the whole thing. It's no way to run a grown-up country. The result is that hate will be allowed to fester online and in person. The message being conveyed from the very top of government is that doing anything about it is more trouble than it's worth. Read More Jennifer Horgan: We need to find room in our hearts for the people of Sudan
