Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

No, but the Minister might be able to explain how it would cost the State more money. The amendment was ruled out on the basis that it would cost the State money. Somebody somewhere thinks it would cost the State more money if we stopped people building a smaller house. The same amount of money would be made available to them but they would build a smaller house with it. It would be cheaper to heat and perhaps better insulated, which may be more in line with what the Minister's Government colleagues in the Green Party might advocate. That is not allowed under this scheme on the basis that it would cost more money. I ask the Minister to explain that. I am not asking why he ruled it out of order because he did not. Nobody is saying he did. I completely accept his bona fides that he did not do that but somebody somewhere in the apparatus of State, in one of the offices around here, thinks this is going to cost the State more money. Someone put that in their head. There is interaction between Departments and Dáil Éireann on what is ruled in or ruled out with regard to objections. I want to know how it will cost the State more money if people take the same amount of money and build a smaller house. The only way it could cost the State more money is if this is being put in to deliberately stop people who do not have the cash on hand themselves to add to the money. In fairness to the Minister, I do not think that is the case. I hope it is not because that would be indecent. I want an explanation as to how it is going to cost the State more money.

I completely agree with my constituency colleague on the need to pursue those who made and sold these defective concrete blocks for money and large profits. I have a number of amendments on this matter but the reality is they will not be reached. People talk out of both sides of the mouth a lot, and increasingly in this Dáil. They think because they voted to guillotine a Bill they will not have to vote down amendments making it more likely that quarry owners who sold defective concrete blocks would be pursued. They say they would have supported them if we had the time but, of course, they voted to make sure we did not have the time because they might have fallen out with their Government colleagues over it. That is really talking out of both sides of your mouth. It is disingenuous and it is offensive at this stage. I am in favour of this amendment but I have a lot of reservations about democracy and where it is going if this is how we make Bills.

See this speech in context