Arthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour)

At the outset I would like to show some empathy to the people who have not only found themselves in the negative equity generation, but who are also part of a generation which bought property that in some cases was built in a negligent manner. I am a firm believer in the idea that there should be consequences to negligence. I agree with the points made by Deputies Lawlor and Keaveney in that respect. The man with a hammer, a map and a chequebook became a developer without any track record or history. He focused on the bottom dollar and that approach has left people in substandard housing needing a great deal of work to remediate what has gone wrong.

Who is culpable for this? The first line of the Private Members' motion stated that all builders were responsible for this mess. I would like to say they are not all responsible. There are men of character and good will who knew what was right and wrong, and who understood that there was a standard of living to be achieved through living in a house, which is the essence of social democracy. The 1990 regulations set out in the Act are objective but are also aspirational. I disagree with the lack of consequences. Deputy Keaveney is correct to say that anybody who is found to have acted in a negligent manner should be blacklisted and prevented from tendering for State projects thereafter.

I would also like to mention the HomeBond experience for those who built houses where pyrite has become a problem. I worked in finance, and I am aware that a generation of people, who were neither engineers, architects or economists, took security from the fact that if they bought a house that was covered by HomeBond and something went wrong, the professions and the State would do right by them and the HomeBond experience would safeguard them. In conversation with fellow Deputies in Fine Gael and the Labour Party, we have come to the conclusion that the HomeBond experience has let people down. It would be unacceptable for the company to be allowed to continue to trade in a rogue fashion. It should do the moral thing rather than simply fulfil its legal obligation.

When a builder builds a house, he cannot claim the stone used was the cause of any fault in the construction. If one buys a bar of chocolate, a car or anything else, the rule of caveat emptor, buyer beware, applies. In this case, the builder is the purchaser of the material and the culpability must lie there. To ring-fence a small amount of money per house, and to cap the amount for each development, is inexcusable. I am led to believe the HomeBond company has a substantial amount of money on deposit. This money was gathered through the goodwill of people. The company should give this goodwill back to the people and try to develop things from there.

I welcome what the Minister is trying to achieve. I acknowledge what the Opposition are saying about this matter. However, we must have standards in professions and culpability for negligence thereafter.

See this speech in context