Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join with previous speakers in questioning the manner in which this legislation is being put through. I appreciate that Bills have to be passed but we spend so much time on statements and now we have two hours to debate this. I understand the Government needs to save money and I understand the Opposition cannot put forward an amendment that costs money. We all accept that. It is in the Constitution; we have no choice but to accept it. What I do not understand is why the Government would remove the possibility of building a smaller house. The money people will get is already set out in the legislation and nobody is looking to tinker with that. We want to remove the provision that requires people to build a house of the same size, not get them more money. How would that cost money and therefore be ruled out of order? The reality is all the homeowners, those who are here and those who are not, have a similar concern, that is, that the money they will get per square metre will not cover the cost of the works. There are going to have to dig into their own money. Some people have that money but many of them will not. I know people in my constituency who have paid back their mortgages and worked all their lives. They are pensioners now. They are not going to get a mortgage to redo the works. Who is going to give a pensioner a mortgage? That is not how banks operate in this State. If they do not get the total amount of what it will cost to remedy the damage or rebuild the house, and they are only getting 80% of the cost, they should be able to build a house that is 80% of the size of the previous one. They might decide they cannot afford the house they spent all their lives working towards but they can afford a slightly smaller house thanks to the generosity of the Minister, the taxpayer or whatever. This legislation states they cannot even do that. They will be caught between a rock and a hard place. Deputy Pringle and I sought to remove that provision and the amendment was ruled out of order. We have a right to know why that is. They have a right to know why it was adjudicated by somebody to be out of order. I would like the Minister to explain how this would have cost the State more money.

See this speech in context