Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives very much for coming before the committee and for giving their information. I dealt with something similar to this nigh on 40 years ago, when it was possible, without demolishment, to take the roofs off houses, as well as the walls, if necessary, and go right down to the base. We could have it fully reconstructed as it was, without any cost to the homeowner at all. That was because of the house builders' guarantee scheme. Everybody said it could not and would not be done, it would not work, and it would break down mid-way, but it did not. Whole schemes were dealt with in that fashion because there was a guarantee. I heard all the arguments that many of the houses were not guaranteed, etc. In fact, they were all guaranteed. When the lending agencies lend, by virtue of their lending, there is a presumption of guarantee. That is still in place. The only collateral the homeowner has available to them is the house, whether that is in an unfinished condition, half-finished, not finished at all or dangerous to inhabit. That is their collateral. It was not the homeowners who caused the problem. Some say corners were cut, but not me. My house was built in this fashion. I built my house in this fashion. I had the engineers, the architect and all the people responsible. Their activities were underwritten and guaranteed by the insurance companies. This was for everything, right from the laying of the first block and the sub-floors. This was for everything. We did not have a problem, fortunately. Thanks be to God, we did not have a problem. There was pyrite in the general area, which was dealt with. The issue had sprung up quietly and was suddenly in the ether before people knew about it. At that time, the insurance companies decided they were going to override 36% of the total cost. No such provision was needed at all. It was their responsibility to ensure that the product that they insured was ready, available and of value to the extent that it was insured for.

I know of the debate about the engineers etc., but to be fair, all the professionals were covered by insurance. Everybody was covered. I mention the overseeing of them and the responsibilities in dealing with them.

I will not go into the whole lot of them at this stage but, suffice to say, in a situation such as that the witnesses find themselves in, the biggest flaw I see is that they are depending on so many entities to deliver on their goods. We must remember they have nothing to go on except the collateral of their home, which may be good, may be bad or may be worth nothing in its present state. We need to look at the issue carefully in this committee. I agree we need to look at it carefully. We need to find out what role the banks, insurance companies and all the professional agencies played in divesting themselves of their responsibility. This would cost them nothing. There would be no reflection on them at all. They have insurance coverage. Some people said they would not stand over it and would not accept it. When you join the army, unfortunately, you have to play the game.

I hope this committee can in some way help to co-ordinate the kind of situation the witnesses have been talking about because it should not fall on them as individuals to try to work out a resolution to an issue that they have no function in at all. It was not a matter of their creation. I say that as someone who has dealt with countless cases of a similar nature. I have had to get involved and get down and dirty with the various responsible agencies during the course of construction. It is not as easy to do it way afterwards, but it can be done.

All I can say is that the Cathaoirleach would be well disposed towards it. Certainly, insofar as I can, I will take up the points that have been raised by the members and ascertain to what extent we can make a meaningful contribution in a practical and co-ordinated way to alleviate the difficulties the witnesses have outlined. This is because if we have to wait for the outcome of discussion and debate with each and every institution, by the time it comes back to the witnesses and this committee, we will not know where to go either. We want to avoid that and bring the issue to a conclusion.