Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not going to defend the ethics of the construction industry. Of course, there were plenty of people who behaved properly, but in general, the sector left too much to be desired. There was no chance it would give us any money if it could get away with it. The same goes for the banks and the insurance bodies.

Bearing in mind that it has been possible for those concerned to wash their hands of the matter, it is blatantly obvious that the stone delivered to the sites was not fit for purpose. The quarries have a responsibility. It is a big problem if responsibility cannot be pinned on them.

What is insurance? Is it available at all when trouble hits the fan? If the insurance companies can get away without taking any responsibility in this regard, what will be the status of insurance companies under the new building regulations? If someone builds an apartment complex with 100 units and it turns out to be a disaster such as Priory Hall, will there be access to the individuals who worked on the project in the insurance company? We need to examine this issue before the problem recurs. If those concerned can get away with this, I fear they will get away with just about anything.

During the statements today on the European Council meeting I was talking about the imminent transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I assure the House that if the European Union and its member states sign up to it, laws helping large corporations and businesses will be enhanced and the possibility of holding them and the potential to hold them to account will be reduced. This will be at the expense of the citizen. Does the Minister not believe this is a massive area that will be very significant in terms of the new building regulations? Some structure must be put in place. I do not know whether a universal insurance scheme is practical or how it could be operated.

There is no point in people hiring insured professionals when, if something goes wrong, there is no cover to deal with the problem. That is what happened in the pyrite situation. The quarries had insurance - they were not allowed to operate without it. Why is that insurance not being called upon? The banks signed off on these houses. They employed professionals to inspect the houses. They had a responsibility to check every aspect of the construction of a house before parting with money for it. The professionals were employed so that the banks, when giving out loans for €300,000 or more for a house, could be happy that things had been done right. Even though they might not have been very au faitwith pyrite, they still have a responsibility because they loaned money to people on the back of professional advice which they assumed was sound. The people hired to give that professional advice would not have been hired by the bank unless they had insurance. Why can that insurance not be tapped into?

Does the Minister agree that insurance is going to be a major issue in the context of the new building regulations? As currently drafted, the regulations provide that the architect is the person of last resort in terms of signing off on projects. Does the Minister think that architects will be able to get insurance against the possibility of having to foot the bill for faulty construction? I am not so sure that will be possible.

See this speech in context